From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7883C3A59E for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 268A4216C8 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:44:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 268A4216C8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46MVC82qM0zDqWt for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:44:20 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com (client-ip=45.249.212.187; helo=huawei.com; envelope-from=gaoxiang25@huawei.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46MVC15h4ZzDqLW for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:44:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C88019D5F1F8E04FB1EB; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:44:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:44:10 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:44:10 +0800 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:43:19 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/21] erofs: kill use_vmap module parameter Message-ID: <20190902124318.GB17916@architecture4> References: <20190802125347.166018-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20190901055130.30572-1-hsiangkao@aol.com> <20190901055130.30572-21-hsiangkao@aol.com> <20190902123124.GR15931@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190902123124.GR15931@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.107) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" Hi Christoph, On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:31:24AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > @@ -224,9 +220,6 @@ static void *erofs_vmap(struct page **pages, unsigned int count) > > { > > int i = 0; > > > > - if (use_vmap) > > - return vmap(pages, count, VM_MAP, PAGE_KERNEL); > > - > > while (1) { > > void *addr = vm_map_ram(pages, count, -1, PAGE_KERNEL); > > I think you can just open code this in the caller. Yes, the only one user... will fix... > > > static void erofs_vunmap(const void *mem, unsigned int count) > > { > > - if (!use_vmap) > > - vm_unmap_ram(mem, count); > > - else > > - vunmap(mem); > > + vm_unmap_ram(mem, count); > > } > > And this wrapper can go away entirely. Got it. will fix. > > And don't forget to report your performance observations to the arm64 > maintainers! In my observation, vm_map_ram always performs better... If there are something strange later, I will report to them immediately... :) Thanks, Gao Xiang