From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: make calling prep_compound_head more reliable
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:44:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40a07ce5-414a-a3b8-53ee-6c348635f03a@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YqiJaOiGnUzzB1+W@casper.infradead.org>
On 2022/6/14 21:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 08:17:35PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -6771,13 +6771,18 @@ static void __ref memmap_init_compound(struct page *head,
>> set_page_count(page, 0);
>>
>> /*
>> - * The first tail page stores compound_mapcount_ptr() and
>> - * compound_order() and the second tail page stores
>> - * compound_pincount_ptr(). Call prep_compound_head() after
>> - * the first and second tail pages have been initialized to
>> - * not have the data overwritten.
>> + * The first tail page stores compound_mapcount_ptr(),
>> + * compound_order() and compound_pincount_ptr(). Call
>> + * prep_compound_head() after the first tail page have
>> + * been initialized to not have the data overwritten.
>> + *
>> + * Note the idea to make this right after we initialize
>> + * the offending tail pages is trying to take advantage
>> + * of the likelihood of those tail struct pages being
>> + * cached given that we will read them right after in
>> + * prep_compound_head().
>
> It's not that we'll read them again, it's that the cacheline will still
> be in cache, and therefore dirty.
Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Honestly, I don't think we need this extra explanation in a comment.
> Just change the first paragraph to reflect reality and leave it at that.
Will do it in next version if prep_compound_head is not moved outside loop.
>
>> */
>> - if (pfn == head_pfn + 2)
>> + if (unlikely(pfn == head_pfn + 1))
>
> We definitely don't need the unlikely here.
Could you please give me a more detailed explanation? IIUC, the above if condition
will only meet at a probability of 1/512. So unlikely tells the compiler to do some
optimization around it. Or am I miss something?
Thanks!
>
>> prep_compound_head(head, order);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Or am I miss something?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-15 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-07 14:41 [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: make calling prep_compound_head more reliable Miaohe Lin
2022-06-07 18:32 ` Andrew Morton
2022-06-07 19:17 ` Joao Martins
2022-06-08 12:17 ` Miaohe Lin
2022-06-14 13:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-06-15 7:44 ` Miaohe Lin [this message]
2022-06-15 12:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-06-16 3:21 ` Miaohe Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40a07ce5-414a-a3b8-53ee-6c348635f03a@huawei.com \
--to=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).