Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] mm: pack compound_dtor and compound_order into one word in struct page
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Fri Aug 21 2015 - 06:52:11 EST
On Fri 21-08-15 13:40:59, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 09:13:42AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 20-08-15 16:26:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> > > Why not use ushort for 64-bit as well?
> >
> > Yeah, I have asked the same in the previous round. So I've tried to
> > compile with ushort. The resulting code was slightly larger
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 476370 90811 44632 611813 955e5 mm/built-in.o.prev
> > 476418 90811 44632 611861 95615 mm/built-in.o.after
> >
> > E.g. prep_compound_page
> > before:
> > 4c6b: c7 47 68 01 00 00 00 movl $0x1,0x68(%rdi)
> > 4c72: 89 77 6c mov %esi,0x6c(%rdi)
> > after:
> > 4c6c: 66 c7 47 68 01 00 movw $0x1,0x68(%rdi)
> > 4c72: 66 89 77 6a mov %si,0x6a(%rdi)
> >
> > which looks very similar to me but I am not an expert here so it might
> > possible that movw is slower.
> >
> > __free_pages_ok
> > before:
> > 63af: 8b 77 6c mov 0x6c(%rdi),%esi
> > after:
> > 63b1: 0f b7 77 6a movzwl 0x6a(%rdi),%esi
> >
> > which looks like a worse code to me. Whether this all is measurable or
> > worth it I dunno. The ifdef is ugly but maybe the ugliness is a destiny
> > for struct page.
>
> I don't care about the ifdef that much. If you guys prefer to drop it I'm
> fine with that.
I can live with it. It makes the struct more complicated which is what
struck me. If there is a good reason and a better generated code is a
good one then I do not object but please make it a separate patch so
that we do not wonder why this has been done in the future.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/