On 9/12/18 12:50 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Alexander Duyck > <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:59 AM Pasha Tatashin >> <Pavel.Tatashin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >> >> Hi Pavel, >> >>> Please re-base on linux-next, memmap_init_zone() has been updated there >>> compared to mainline. You might even find a way to unify some parts of >>> memmap_init_zone and memmap_init_zone_device as memmap_init_zone() is a >>> lot simpler now. >> >> This patch applied to the linux-next tree with only a little bit of >> fuzz. It looks like it is mostly due to some code you had added above >> the function as well. I have updated this patch so that it will apply >> to both linux and linux-next by just moving the new function to >> underneath memmap_init_zone instead of above it. >> >>> I think __init_single_page() should stay local to page_alloc.c to keep >>> the inlining optimization. >> >> I agree. In addition it will make pulling common init together into >> one space easier. I would rather not have us create an opportunity for >> things to further diverge by making it available for anybody to use. > > I'll buy the inline argument for keeping the new routine in > page_alloc.c, but I otherwise do not see the divergence danger or > "making __init_single_page() available for anybody" given the the > declaration is limited in scope to a mm/ local header file. > Hi Dan, It is much harder for compiler to decide that function can be inlined once it is non-static. Of course, we can simply move this function to a header file, and declare it inline to begin with. But, still __init_single_page() is so performance sensitive, that I'd like to reduce number of callers to this function, and keep it in .c file. Thank you, Pavel
