Re: [PATCH] page_alloc.c: inline __rmqueue()

[Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>]

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:07:36PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 11:14 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > __rmqueue() is called by rmqueue_bulk() and rmqueue() under zone->lock
> > and that lock can be heavily contended with memory intensive applications.
> > 
> > Since __rmqueue() is a small function, inline it can save us some time.
> > With the will-it-scale/page_fault1/process benchmark, when using nr_cpu
> > processes to stress buddy:
> > 
> > On a 2 sockets Intel-Skylake machine:
> >       base          %change       head
> >      77342            +6.3%      82203        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> > 
> > On a 4 sockets Intel-Skylake machine:
> >       base          %change       head
> >      75746            +4.6%      79248        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> > 
> > This patch adds inline to __rmqueue().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
> 
> Ran it through kernel bench and ebizzy micro benchmarks. Results
> were comparable with and without the patch. May be these are not
> the appropriate tests for this inlining improvement. Anyways it

I think so.

The benefit only appears when the lock contention is huge enough, e.g.
perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath is as high
as 80% with the workload I have used.

> does not have any performance degradation either.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks!

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>