On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 02:38 +0900, KyongHo Cho wrote:
> Actually, as long as a bank in meminfo only resides in a pgdat, no
> problem happens
> because there is no restriction of size of area in a pgdat.
> That's why I just considered about sparsemem.
Ahh, so "banks" are always underneath a single pgdat, and a "bank" is
always contiguous? That's handy.
> I worried that pfn_to_page() in sparsemem is a bit slower than that in flatmem.
> Moreover, the previous one didn't use pfn_to_page() but page++ for the
> performance.
> Nevertheless, I also think that pfn_to_page() make the code neat.
The sparsemem_vmemmap pfn_to_page() is just arithmetic. The table-based
sparsemem requires lookups and is a _bit_ slower, but the tables have
very nice CPU cache properties and shouldn't miss the L1 very often in a
loop like that.
show_mem() isn't exactly a performance-critical path, either, right?
It's just an exception or error path.
If it turns out that doing pfn_to_page() *is* too slow, there are a
couple more alternatives. pfn_to_section_nr() is just a bit shift and
is really cheap. Should be just an instruction or two with either no
memory access, or just a load of the pfn from the stack.
We could make a generic function like this (Or I guess we could also
just make sure that pfn_to_section_nr() always returns 0 for
non-sparsemem configurations):
int pfns_same_section(unsigned long pfn1, unsigned long pfn2)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
return (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn1) == pfn_to_section_nr(pfn2));
#else
return 1;
#endif
}
and use it in show_mem like so:
do {
total++;
if (PageReserved(page))
reserved++;
else if (PageSwapCache(page))
cached++;
else if (PageSlab(page))
slab++;
else if (!page_count(page))
free++;
else
shared += page_count(page) - 1;
pfn1++;
/*
* Did we just cross a section boundary?
* If so, our pointer arithmetic is not
* valid, and we must re-run pfn_to_page()
*/
if (pfns_same_section(pfn1-1, pfn1)) {
page++;
} else {
page = pfn_to_page(pfn1);
}
} while (page < end);
We can do basically the same thing, but instead checking to see if we
crossed a MAX_ORDER boundary. That would keep us from having to refer
to sparsemem at all. The buddy allocator relies on that guarantee, so
it's pretty set in stone.
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>