On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 11:07 AM Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 10:43:20AM +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 04:40:59PM +0900, Wonhyuk Yang wrote:
> > > To calculate order, calc_slab_order() is called repeatly changing the
> > > fract_leftover. Thus, the branch which is not dependent on
> > > fract_leftover is executed repeatly. So make it run only once.
> > >
> > > Plus, when min_object reached to 0, we set fract_leftover to 1. In
> >
> > Maybe you mean when min_object reached 1.
> >
> > > this case, we can calculate order by max(slub_min_order,
> > > get_order(size)) instead of calling calc_slab_order().
> > >
> > > No functional impact expected.
> > > Signed-off-by: Wonhyuk Yang <vvghjk1234@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > V1 -> V2: Fix typo miss in a commit message
> > >
> > > mm/slub.c | 18 +++++++-----------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > > index ed5c2c03a47a..e7a394d7b75a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > @@ -3795,9 +3795,6 @@ static inline unsigned int calc_slab_order(unsigned int size,
> > > unsigned int min_order = slub_min_order;
> > > unsigned int order;
> > >
> > > - if (order_objects(min_order, size) > MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE)
> > > - return get_order(size * MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE) - 1;
> > > -
> > > for (order = max(min_order, (unsigned int)get_order(min_objects * size));
> > > order <= max_order; order++) {
> > >
> > > @@ -3820,6 +3817,11 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned int size)
> > > unsigned int max_objects;
> > > unsigned int nr_cpus;
> > >
> > > + if (unlikely(order_objects(slub_min_order, size) > MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE)) {
> > > + order = get_order(size * MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE) - 1;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Attempt to find best configuration for a slab. This
> > > * works by first attempting to generate a layout with
> > > @@ -3865,14 +3867,8 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned int size)
> > > * We were unable to place multiple objects in a slab. Now
> > > * lets see if we can place a single object there.
> > > */
> > > - order = calc_slab_order(size, 1, slub_max_order, 1);
> > > - if (order <= slub_max_order)
> > > - return order;
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * Doh this slab cannot be placed using slub_max_order.
> > > - */
> > > - order = calc_slab_order(size, 1, MAX_ORDER, 1);
> > > + order = max_t(unsigned int, slub_min_order, (unsigned int)get_order(size));
> > > +out:
> >
> > You don't need to cast value of get_order(size). max_t() does cast both operands.
> >
> > > if (order < MAX_ORDER)
> > > return order;
> > > return -ENOSYS;
> >
> > For the correctness of the patch, I don't see any problem about the
> > code.
> >
> > But to be honest I'm a bit skeptical about saving some cycles in
> > calculating slab order. It's done only when creating caches (usually in boot
> > process).
>
> But yeah, maybe it's worth for better maintenance of code.
>
> So after considering my comments, feel free to add:
> Reviewed-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks!
>
Thanks for taking the time to review Hyeonggon!
