On 09/08/2015 09:19 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
bloat-o-meter looks favorably with my gcc, although there shouldn't be a real
reason for it, as the inlining didn't change:
add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 1/1 up/down: 285/-336 (-51)
function old new delta
bad_page - 276 +276
get_page_from_freelist 2521 2530 +9
free_pages_prepare 745 667 -78
bad_page.part 258 - -258
With that,
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
BTW, why do we do all these checks in non-DEBUG_VM builds? Are they so
often hit nowadays? Shouldn't we check just for hwpoison in the
non-debug case?
Alternatively, I've considered creating a fast inline pre-check that
calls a non-inline check-with-report:
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 0c9c82a..cff92f8 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -707,7 +707,20 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
zone->free_area[order].nr_free++;
}
-static inline int check_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long
bad_flags)
+static inline int check_one_page_fast(struct page *page, unsigned long
+ bad_flags)
+{
+ return (page_mapcount(page)
+ || page->mapping != NULL
+ || atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0
+ || page->flags & bad_flags
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
+ || page->mem_cgroup
+#endif
+ );
+}
+
+static noinline int check_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long
bad_flags)
{
const char *bad_reason = NULL;
@@ -743,9 +756,12 @@ static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
{
int ret = 0;
- ret = check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
+ ret = check_one_page_fast(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
+ if (ret) {
+ ret = check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ }
page_cpupid_reset_last(page);
if (page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP)
@@ -1304,7 +1320,9 @@ static inline void expand(struct zone *zone,
struct page *page,
*/
static inline int check_new_page(struct page *page)
{
- return check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP);
+ if (check_one_page_fast(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP | __PG_HWPOISON))
+ return check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP);
+ return 0;
}
static int prep_new_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order, gfp_t
gfp_flags,
---
That shrinks the fast paths nicely:
add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 480/-498 (-18)
function old new delta
check_one_page - 480 +480
get_page_from_freelist 2530 2458 -72
free_pages_prepare 667 517 -150
bad_page 276 - -276
On top of that, the number of branches in the fast paths can be reduced
if we use arithmetic OR to avoid the short-circuit boolean evaluation:
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index cff92f8..e8b42ba 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -710,12 +710,12 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
static inline int check_one_page_fast(struct page *page, unsigned long
bad_flags)
{
- return (page_mapcount(page)
- || page->mapping != NULL
- || atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0
- || page->flags & bad_flags
+ return ((unsigned long) page_mapcount(page)
+ | (unsigned long) page->mapping
+ | (unsigned long) atomic_read(&page->_count)
+ | (page->flags & bad_flags)
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
- || page->mem_cgroup
+ | (unsigned long) page->mem_cgroup
#endif
);
}
That further reduces the fast paths, not much in bytes, but importantly
in branches:
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 0/-51 (-51)
function old new delta
get_page_from_freelist 2458 2443 -15
free_pages_prepare 517 481 -36
But I can understand it's rather hackish, and maybe some architectures
won't be happy with the extra unsigned long arithmetics. Thoughts?
--
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>