On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The mmu_shrink() is heavy by itself by iterating all kvms and holding
> the kvm_lock. spotted the code w/ Rik during LSF, and it turns out we
> don't need to call the shrinker if nothing to shrink.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 4cb1642..7025736 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,11 @@ static u64 __read_mostly shadow_mmio_mask;
>
> static void mmu_spte_set(u64 *sptep, u64 spte);
>
> +static inline int get_kvm_total_used_mmu_pages()
> +{
> + return percpu_counter_read_positive(&kvm_total_used_mmu_pages);
> +}
> +
> void kvm_mmu_set_mmio_spte_mask(u64 mmio_mask)
> {
> shadow_mmio_mask = mmio_mask;
> @@ -3900,6 +3905,9 @@ static int mmu_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> if (nr_to_scan == 0)
> goto out;
>
> + if (!get_kvm_total_used_mmu_pages())
> + return 0;
> +
> raw_spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
>
> list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> @@ -3926,7 +3934,7 @@ static int mmu_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
>
> out:
> - return percpu_counter_read_positive(&kvm_total_used_mmu_pages);
> + return get_kvm_total_used_mmu_pages();
> }
>
Just nitpick.
If new helper not created, there is only one hunk needed.
btw, make sense to check nr_to_scan while scanning vm_list, and bail out
if it hits zero?
Good Weekend
-hd
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href