2012/7/9 David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
>
>> >> __alloc_pages_direct_compact has many arguments so invoking it is very costly.
>> >> And in almost invoking case, order is 0, so return immediately.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If "zero cost" is "very costly", then this might make sense.
>> >
>> > __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is inlined by gcc.
>>
>> In my kernel image, __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is not inlined by gcc.
>
> Adding Andrew and Mel to the thread since this would require that we
> revert 11e33f6a55ed ("page allocator: break up the allocator entry point
> into fast and slow paths") which would obviously not be a clean revert
> since there have been several changes to these functions over the past
> three years.
Only "__alloc_pages_direct_compact()" is not inlined.
All others (__alloc_pages_high_priority, __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim,
...) are inlined correctly.
So revert is not needed.
I think __alloc_pages_direct_compact() can't be inlined by gcc,
because it is so big and is invoked two times in __alloc_pages_nodemask().
> I'm stunned (and skeptical) that __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is not
> inlined by your gcc, especially since the kernel must be compiled with
> optimization (either -O1 or -O2 which causes these functions to be
> inlined). What version of gcc are you using and on what architecture?
> Please do "make mm/page_alloc.s" and send it to me privately, I'll file
> this and fix it up on gcc-bugs.
I will send result of "make mm/page_alloc.s" to you privately.
My environments is "x86_64, GNU C version 4.6.3"
> I'll definitely be following up on this.
Thanks for comments.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>