On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 12:59 AM Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It seems there is about 24Bytes binary size increase for
> __page_frag_cache_refill() after refactoring in arm64 system
> with 64K PAGE_SIZE. By doing the gdb disassembling, It seems
> we can have more than 100Bytes decrease for the binary size
> by using __alloc_pages() to replace alloc_pages_node(), as
> there seems to be some unnecessary checking for nid being
> NUMA_NO_NODE, especially when page_frag is part of the mm
> system.
>
> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_frag_cache.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_frag_cache.c b/mm/page_frag_cache.c
> index 6f6e47bbdc8d..a5448b44068a 100644
> --- a/mm/page_frag_cache.c
> +++ b/mm/page_frag_cache.c
> @@ -61,11 +61,11 @@ static struct page *__page_frag_cache_refill(struct page_frag_cache *nc,
> #if (PAGE_SIZE < PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE)
> gfp_mask = (gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) | __GFP_COMP |
> __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC;
> - page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp_mask,
> - PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_ORDER);
> + page = __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_ORDER,
> + numa_mem_id(), NULL);
> #endif
> if (unlikely(!page)) {
> - page = alloc_pages_node(NUMA_NO_NODE, gfp, 0);
> + page = __alloc_pages(gfp, 0, numa_mem_id(), NULL);
> order = 0;
> }
>
Still not a huge fan of fixing the bigger issue here, but I guess
there is only one or two other spots that encounter this, so I would
classify it as "mostly harmless" in terms of not fixing it.
Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@xxxxxx>
