>On Sat 20-06-20 08:59:58, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>[...]
>> @@ -3502,19 +3525,12 @@ bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order, unsigned long mark,
>> const bool alloc_harder = (alloc_flags & (ALLOC_HARDER|ALLOC_OOM));
>>
>> /* free_pages may go negative - that's OK */
>> - free_pages -= (1 << order) - 1;
>> + free_pages -= __zone_watermark_unusable_free(z, order, alloc_flags);
>>
>> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_HIGH)
>> min -= min / 2;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * If the caller does not have rights to ALLOC_HARDER then subtract
>> - * the high-atomic reserves. This will over-estimate the size of the
>> - * atomic reserve but it avoids a search.
>> - */
>> - if (likely(!alloc_harder)) {
>> - free_pages -= z->nr_reserved_highatomic;
>> - } else {
>> + if (unlikely(alloc_harder)) {
>> /*
>> * OOM victims can try even harder than normal ALLOC_HARDER
>> * users on the grounds that it's definitely going to be in
>[...]
>> @@ -3582,25 +3591,22 @@ static inline bool zone_watermark_fast(struct zone *z, unsigned int order,
>> unsigned long mark, int highest_zoneidx,
>> unsigned int alloc_flags)
>> {
>> - long free_pages = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_PAGES);
>> - long cma_pages = 0;
>> + long free_pages;
>> + long unusable_free;
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>> - /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */
>> - if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA))
>> - cma_pages = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES);
>> -#endif
>> + free_pages = zone_page_state(z, NR_FREE_PAGES);
>> + unusable_free = __zone_watermark_unusable_free(z, order, alloc_flags);
>>
>> /*
>> * Fast check for order-0 only. If this fails then the reserves
>> - * need to be calculated. There is a corner case where the check
>> - * passes but only the high-order atomic reserve are free. If
>> - * the caller is !atomic then it'll uselessly search the free
>> - * list. That corner case is then slower but it is harmless.
>> + * need to be calculated.
>> */
>> - if (!order && (free_pages - cma_pages) >
>> - mark + z->lowmem_reserve[highest_zoneidx])
>> - return true;
>> + if (!order) {
>> + long fast_free = free_pages - unusable_free;
>> +
>> + if (fast_free > mark + z->lowmem_reserve[highest_zoneidx])
>> + return true;
>> + }
>
>There is no user of unusable_free for order > 0. With you current code
>__zone_watermark_unusable_free would be called twice for high order
>allocations unless compiler tries to be clever..
Yes you're right.
Following code could be moved only for order-0.
unusable_free = __zone_watermark_unusable_free(z, order, alloc_flags);
Let me fix it at v5.
>
>But more importantly, I have hard time to follow why we need both
>zone_watermark_fast and zone_watermark_ok now. They should be
>essentially the same for anything but order == 0. For order 0 the
>only difference between the two is that zone_watermark_ok checks for
>ALLOC_HIGH resp ALLOC_HARDER, ALLOC_OOM. So what is exactly fast about
>the former and why do we need it these days?
>
I think the author, Mel, may ansewr. But I think the wmark_fast may
fast by 1) not checking more condition about wmark and 2) using inline
rather than function. According to description on commit 48ee5f3696f6,
it seems to bring about 4% improvement.
>>
>> return __zone_watermark_ok(z, order, mark, highest_zoneidx, alloc_flags,
>> free_pages);
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>
>--
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs
>
