From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932470AbcEKJdI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 11 May 2016 05:33:08 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:35928 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932154AbcEKJdE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 May 2016 05:33:04 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:34:35 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zsmalloc: avoid unnecessary iteration in
 get_pages_per_zspage()
Message-ID: <20160511093435.GA13113@swordfish>
References: <1462425447-13385-1-git-send-email-opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>
 <20160505100329.GA497@swordfish>
 <20160506030935.GA18573@bbox>
 <CADAEsF9S4GQE6V+zsvRRVYjdbfN3VRQFcTiN5E_MWw60bfk0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160506090801.GA488@swordfish>
 <20160506093342.GB488@swordfish>
 <20160509050102.GA4574@blaptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160509050102.GA4574@blaptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (05/09/16 14:01), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > no, we need cltd there. but ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE also affects
> > ZS_MIN_ALLOC_SIZE, which is used in several places, like
> > get_size_class_index(). that's why ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE data
> > type change `improves' zs_malloc().
> 
> Why not if such simple improves zsmalloc? :)
> Please send a patch.
> 
> Thanks a lot, Sergey!

Hello Minchan,

sorry for long reply, I decided to investigate it a bit further.
with this patch, gcc 6.1 -O2 generates "+13" instructions more,
-Os "-25" instructions less. this +13 ins case is a no-no-no.

	-ss