On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:54:12AM +0400, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> 2014-12-16 5:42 GMT+03:00 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:16:00AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>
> >> > > +static bool same_slab_page(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, void *p)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > + long d = p - page->address;
> >> > > +
> >> > > + return d > 0 && d < (1 << MAX_ORDER) && d < (compound_order(page) << PAGE_SHIFT);
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +
> >> >
> >> > Somtimes, compound_order() induces one more cacheline access, because
> >> > compound_order() access second struct page in order to get order. Is there
> >> > any way to remove this?
> >>
> >> I already have code there to avoid the access if its within a MAX_ORDER
> >> page. We could probably go for a smaller setting there. PAGE_COSTLY_ORDER?
> >
> > That is the solution to avoid compound_order() call when slab of
> > object isn't matched with per cpu slab.
> >
> > What I'm asking is whether there is a way to avoid compound_order() call when slab
> > of object is matched with per cpu slab or not.
> >
>
> Can we use page->objects for that?
>
> Like this:
>
> return d > 0 && d < page->objects * s->size;
>
Yes! That's what I'm looking for.
Christoph, how about above change?
Thanks.
--
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>