Re: [PATCH -mm -v3] mm, swap: Sort swap entries before free
From: Minchan Kim
Date: Tue May 02 2017 - 01:49:05 EST
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 01:35:24PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Minchan,
> Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:35:37PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> In fact, during the test, I found the overhead of sort() is comparable
> >> with the performance difference of adding likely()/unlikely() to the
> >> "if" in the function.
> > Huang,
> > This discussion is started from your optimization code:
> > if (nr_swapfiles > 1)
> > sort();
> > I don't have such fast machine so cannot test it. However, you added
> > such optimization code in there so I guess it's *worth* to review so
> > with spending my time, I pointed out what you are missing and
> > suggested a idea to find a compromise.
> Sorry for wasting your time and Thanks a lot for your review and
> When I started talking this with you, I found there is some measurable
> overhead of sort(). But later when I done more tests, I found the
> measurable overhead is at the same level of likely()/unlikely() compiler
> notation. So you help me to find that, Thanks again!
> > Now you are saying sort is so fast so no worth to add more logics
> > to avoid the overhead?
> > Then, please just drop that if condition part and instead, sort
> > it unconditionally.
> Now, because we found the overhead of sort() is low, I suggest to put
> minimal effort to avoid it. Like the original implementation,
> if (nr_swapfiles > 1)
It might confuse someone in future and would make him/her send a patch
to fix like we discussed. If the logic is not clear and doesn't have
measureable overhead, just leave it which is more simple/clear.
> Or, we can make nr_swapfiles more correct as Tim suggested (tracking
> the number of the swap devices during swap on/off).
It might be better option but it's still hard to justify the patch
because you said it's hard to measure. Such optimiztion patch should
be from numbers.