Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, rmap: handle anon_vma_fork() NULL check inline

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, rmap: handle anon_vma_fork() NULL check inline
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:35:39 +0000
Cc: viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, brauner@xxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx, lokeshgidra@xxxxxxxxxx, lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx, rppt@xxxxxxxxxx, aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx, Jason@xxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20241209132549.2878604-3-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
References: <20241209132549.2878604-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20241209132549.2878604-3-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:25:49PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> Check the anon_vma of pvma inline so we can avoid the function call
> overhead if the anon_vma is NULL.

This really gets you 1% perf improvement?  On what hardware?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, rmap: handle anon_vma_fork() NULL check inline
  - From: Jinjie Ruan

References:
- [PATCH 0/2] userfaultfd: handle few NULL check inline
  - From: Jinjie Ruan
- [PATCH 2/2] mm, rmap: handle anon_vma_fork() NULL check inline
  - From: Jinjie Ruan

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -next] ovl: respect underlying filesystem's get_unmapped_area()
Next by Date: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] general protection fault in find_mergeable_anon_vma
Previous by thread: [PATCH 2/2] mm, rmap: handle anon_vma_fork() NULL check inline
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, rmap: handle anon_vma_fork() NULL check inline
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]

Powered by Linux