[+CC PeterZ] On 11/25/2015 03:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 24-11-15 13:36:15, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> CONFIG_PAGE_OWNER attempts to impose negligible runtime overhead when enabled >> during compilation, but not actually enabled during runtime by boot param >> page_owner=on. This overhead can be further reduced using the static key >> mechanism, which this patch does. > > Is this really worth doing? Well, I assume that jump labels exist for a reason, and allocation hot paths are sufficiently sensitive to be worth it? It's not an extra maintenance burden for us anyway. Just a bit different content of the if () line. > If we do not have jump labels then the check > will be atomic rather than a simple access, so it would be more costly, > no? Or am I missing something? Well, atomic read is a simple READ_ONCE on x86_64. That excludes some compiler optimizations, but it's not expensive for the CPU. The optimization would be caching the value of the flag to a register, which would only potentially affect multiple checks from the same function (and its inlines). Which doesn't happen AFAIK, as it's just once in the allocation and once in the free path? Now I admit I have no idea if there are architectures that don't support jump labels *and* have an expensive atomic read, and whether we care? -- 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>