On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:09:35PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 12:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:53:37PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>On 24.8.2015 15:16, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> return read_seqcount_retry(¤t->mems_allowed_seq, seq);
> >>>>>@@ -139,7 +141,7 @@ static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> #else /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-static inline bool cpusets_enabled(void) { return false; }
> >>>>>+static inline bool cpusets_mems_enabled(void) { return false; }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static inline int cpuset_init(void) { return 0; }
> >>>>> static inline void cpuset_init_smp(void) {}
> >>>>>diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >>>>>index 62ae28d8ae8d..2c1c3bf54d15 100644
> >>>>>--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> >>>>>+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> >>>>>@@ -2470,7 +2470,7 @@ get_page_from_freelist(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
> >>>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) && zlc_active &&
> >>>>> !zlc_zone_worth_trying(zonelist, z, allowednodes))
> >>>>> continue;
> >>>>>- if (cpusets_enabled() &&
> >>>>>+ if (cpusets_mems_enabled() &&
> >>>>> (alloc_flags & ALLOC_CPUSET) &&
> >>>>> !cpuset_zone_allowed(zone, gfp_mask))
> >>>>> continue;
> >>>>
> >>>>Here the benefits are less clear. I guess cpuset_zone_allowed() is
> >>>>potentially costly...
> >>>>
> >>>>Heck, shouldn't we just start the static key on -1 (if possible), so that
> >>>>it's enabled only when there's 2+ cpusets?
> >>
> >>Hm wait a minute, that's what already happens:
> >>
> >>static inline int nr_cpusets(void)
> >>{
> >> /* jump label reference count + the top-level cpuset */
> >> return static_key_count(&cpusets_enabled_key) + 1;
> >>}
> >>
> >>I.e. if there's only the root cpuset, static key is disabled, so I think this
> >>patch is moot after all?
> >>
> >
> >static_key_count is an atomic read on a field in struct static_key where
> >as static_key_false is a arch_static_branch which can be eliminated. The
> >patch eliminates an atomic read so I didn't think it was moot.
>
> Sorry I wasn't clear enough. My point is that AFAICS cpusets_enabled() will
> only return true if there are more cpusets than the root (top-level) one.
> So the current cpusets_enabled() checks should be enough. Checking that
> "nr_cpusets() > 1" only duplicates what is already covered by
> cpusets_enabled() - see the nr_cpusets() listing above. I.e. David's premise
> was wrong.
>
/me slaps self
I should have spotted that. Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>