On 6/20/23 11:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 04:27:59PM +0800, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
>> index 57cb01b042f6..0f8554aeb338 100644
>> --- a/mm/swap.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap.c
>> @@ -228,8 +228,7 @@ static void folio_batch_move_lru(struct folio_batch *fbatch, move_fn_t move_fn)
>> static void folio_batch_add_and_move(struct folio_batch *fbatch,
>> struct folio *folio, move_fn_t move_fn)
>> {
>> - if (folio_batch_add(fbatch, folio) && !folio_test_large(folio) &&
>> - !lru_cache_disabled())
>> + if (folio_batch_add(fbatch, folio) && !lru_cache_disabled())
>> return;
>> folio_batch_move_lru(fbatch, move_fn);
>> }
>
> What if all you do is:
>
> - if (folio_batch_add(fbatch, folio) && !folio_test_large(folio) &&
> - !lru_cache_disabled())
> + if (folio_batch_add(fbatch, folio) && !lru_cache_disabled())
>
>
> How does that perform?
With same hardware: IceLake 48C/96T and using order 2, the test result is as following:
order2_without_the_patch:
- 65.53% 0.22% page_fault1_pro [kernel.kallsyms] [k] folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave
- 65.30% folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave
+ 65.30% _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
order2_with_the_patch:
- 19.94% 0.26% page_fault1_pro [kernel.vmlinux] [k] folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave
- 19.67% folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave
+ 19.67% _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
