On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:12:28PM +0900, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> 2012/11/13 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:30:57AM +0900, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> >> 2012/11/3 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > Hi Joonsoo,
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 04:07:25AM +0900, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> >> >> Hello, Minchan.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2012/11/1 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 01:56:36AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> >> >> In current code, after flush_all_zero_pkmaps() is invoked,
> >> >> >> then re-iterate all pkmaps. It can be optimized if flush_all_zero_pkmaps()
> >> >> >> return index of first flushed entry. With this index,
> >> >> >> we can immediately map highmem page to virtual address represented by index.
> >> >> >> So change return type of flush_all_zero_pkmaps()
> >> >> >> and return index of first flushed entry.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Additionally, update last_pkmap_nr to this index.
> >> >> >> It is certain that entry which is below this index is occupied by other mapping,
> >> >> >> therefore updating last_pkmap_nr to this index is reasonable optimization.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/highmem.h b/include/linux/highmem.h
> >> >> >> index ef788b5..97ad208 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/include/linux/highmem.h
> >> >> >> +++ b/include/linux/highmem.h
> >> >> >> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ static inline void invalidate_kernel_vmap_range(void *vaddr, int size)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> >> >> >> #include <asm/highmem.h>
> >> >> >> +#define PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX (LAST_PKMAP)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> /* declarations for linux/mm/highmem.c */
> >> >> >> unsigned int nr_free_highpages(void);
> >> >> >> diff --git a/mm/highmem.c b/mm/highmem.c
> >> >> >> index d98b0a9..b365f7b 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/mm/highmem.c
> >> >> >> +++ b/mm/highmem.c
> >> >> >> @@ -106,10 +106,10 @@ struct page *kmap_to_page(void *vaddr)
> >> >> >> return virt_to_page(addr);
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -static void flush_all_zero_pkmaps(void)
> >> >> >> +static unsigned int flush_all_zero_pkmaps(void)
> >> >> >> {
> >> >> >> int i;
> >> >> >> - int need_flush = 0;
> >> >> >> + unsigned int index = PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> flush_cache_kmaps();
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> @@ -141,10 +141,13 @@ static void flush_all_zero_pkmaps(void)
> >> >> >> &pkmap_page_table[i]);
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> set_page_address(page, NULL);
> >> >> >> - need_flush = 1;
> >> >> >> + if (index == PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX)
> >> >> >> + index = i;
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >> - if (need_flush)
> >> >> >> + if (index != PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX)
> >> >> >> flush_tlb_kernel_range(PKMAP_ADDR(0), PKMAP_ADDR(LAST_PKMAP));
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> + return index;
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> /**
> >> >> >> @@ -152,14 +155,19 @@ static void flush_all_zero_pkmaps(void)
> >> >> >> */
> >> >> >> void kmap_flush_unused(void)
> >> >> >> {
> >> >> >> + unsigned int index;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> lock_kmap();
> >> >> >> - flush_all_zero_pkmaps();
> >> >> >> + index = flush_all_zero_pkmaps();
> >> >> >> + if (index != PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX && (index < last_pkmap_nr))
> >> >> >> + last_pkmap_nr = index;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't know how kmap_flush_unused is really fast path so how my nitpick
> >> >> > is effective. Anyway,
> >> >> > What problem happens if we do following as?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > lock()
> >> >> > index = flush_all_zero_pkmaps();
> >> >> > if (index != PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX)
> >> >> > last_pkmap_nr = index;
> >> >> > unlock();
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Normally, last_pkmap_nr is increased with searching empty slot in
> >> >> > map_new_virtual. So I expect return value of flush_all_zero_pkmaps
> >> >> > in kmap_flush_unused normally become either less than last_pkmap_nr
> >> >> > or last_pkmap_nr + 1.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is a case that return value of kmap_flush_unused() is larger
> >> >> than last_pkmap_nr.
> >> >
> >> > I see but why it's problem? kmap_flush_unused returns larger value than
> >> > last_pkmap_nr means that there is no free slot at below the value.
> >> > So unconditional last_pkmap_nr update is vaild.
> >>
> >> I think that this is not true.
> >> Look at the slightly different example.
> >>
> >> Assume last_pkmap = 20 and index 1-9, 12-19 is kmapped. 10, 11 is kunmapped.
> >>
> >> do kmap_flush_unused() => flush index 10,11 => last_pkmap = 10;
> >> do kunmap() with index 17
> >> do kmap_flush_unused() => flush index 17 => last_pkmap = 17?
> >>
> >> In this case, unconditional last_pkmap_nr update skip one kunmapped index.
> >> So, conditional update is needed.
> >
> > Thanks for pouinting out, Joonsoo.
> > You're right. I misunderstood your flush_all_zero_pkmaps change.
> > As your change, flush_all_zero_pkmaps returns first *flushed* free slot index.
> > What's the benefit returning flushed flushed free slot index rather than free slot index?
>
> If flush_all_zero_pkmaps() return free slot index rather than first
> flushed free slot,
> we need another comparison like as 'if pkmap_count[i] == 0' and
> need another local variable for determining whether flush is occurred or not.
> I want to minimize these overhead and churning of the code, although
> they are negligible.
>
> > I think flush_all_zero_pkmaps should return first free slot because customer of
> > flush_all_zero_pkmaps doesn't care whether it's just flushed or not.
> > What he want is just free or not. In such case, we can remove above check and it makes
> > flusha_all_zero_pkmaps more intuitive.
>
> Yes, it is more intuitive, but as I mentioned above, it need another comparison,
> so with that, a benefit which prevent to re-iterate when there is no
> free slot, may be disappeared.
If you're very keen on the performance, why do you have such code?
You can remove below branch if you were keen on the performance.
diff --git a/mm/highmem.c b/mm/highmem.c
index c8be376..44a88dd 100644
--- a/mm/highmem.c
+++ b/mm/highmem.c
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static unsigned int flush_all_zero_pkmaps(void)
flush_cache_kmaps();
- for (i = 0; i < LAST_PKMAP; i++) {
+ for (i = LAST_PKMAP - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
struct page *page;
/*
@@ -141,8 +141,7 @@ static unsigned int flush_all_zero_pkmaps(void)
pte_clear(&init_mm, PKMAP_ADDR(i), &pkmap_page_table[i]);
set_page_address(page, NULL);
- if (index == PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX)
- index = i;
+ index = i;
}
if (index != PKMAP_INVALID_INDEX)
flush_tlb_kernel_range(PKMAP_ADDR(0), PKMAP_ADDR(LAST_PKMAP));
Anyway, if you have the concern of performance, Okay let's give up making code clear
although I didn't see any report about kmap perfomance. Instead, please consider above
optimization because you have already broken what you mentioned.
If we can't make function clear, another method for it is to add function comment. Please.
>
> --
> 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>
--
Kind Regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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>