Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anonfilter

From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Fri Mar 09 2012 - 19:04:51 EST


On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I like very much the look of what he's come up with, but I'm still
> > puzzling over why it barely makes any improvement to __isolate_lru_page():
> > seems significantly inferior (in code size terms) to his original (which
> > I imagine Glauber's compromise would be equivalent to).
> >
> > At some point I ought to give up on niggling about this,
> > but I haven't quite got there yet.
>
> (with if())
> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v1
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/1 up/down: 32/-20 (12)
> function old new delta
> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16
> shrink_inactive_list 1259 1275 +16
> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20
>
> (with switch())
> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v2
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 4/2 up/down: 111/-23 (88)
> function old new delta
> __isolate_lru_page 301 377 +76
> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16
> shrink_inactive_list 1259 1275 +16
> page_evictable 170 173 +3
> __remove_mapping 322 319 -3
> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20
>
> (without __always_inline on page_lru())
> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v5-noinline
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 5/2 up/down: 93/-23 (70)
> function old new delta
> __isolate_lru_page 301 333 +32
> isolate_lru_page 359 385 +26
> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16
> putback_inactive_pages 635 651 +16
> page_evictable 170 173 +3
> __remove_mapping 322 319 -3
> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20
>
> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v5
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 3/4 up/down: 35/-67 (-32)
> function old new delta
> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16
> __isolate_lru_page 301 317 +16
> page_evictable 170 173 +3
> __remove_mapping 322 319 -3
> mem_cgroup_lru_del 73 65 -8
> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20
> __mem_cgroup_commit_charge 676 640 -36
>
> Actually __isolate_lru_page() even little bit bigger

I was coming to realize that it must be your page_lru()ing:
although it's dressed up in one line, there's several branches there.

I think you'll find you have a clear winner at last, if you just pass
lru on down as third arg to __isolate_lru_page(), where file used to
be passed, instead of re-evaluating it inside.

shrink callers already have the lru, and compaction works it out
immediately afterwards.

Though we do need to be careful: the lumpy case would then have to
pass page_lru(cursor_page). Oh, actually no (though it would deserve
a comment): since the lumpy case selects LRU_ALL_EVICTABLE, it's
irrelevant what it passes for lru, so might as well stick with
the one passed down. Though you may decide I'm being too tricky
there, and prefer to calculate page_lru(cursor_page) anyway, it
not being the hottest path.

Whether you'd still want page_lru(page) __always_inline, I don't know.

Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/