Re: [PATCH mm-new v6 2/5] mm: khugepaged: refine scan progress number

[Lance Yang]

On 2026/2/6 19:12, Vernon Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 10:02:48AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 2/5/26 15:25, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > On 05/02/26 5:41 pm, David Hildenbrand (arm) wrote:
> > > > On 2/5/26 07:08, Vernon Yang wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 5:35 AM David Hildenbrand (arm)
> > > > > <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess, your meaning is "min(_pte - pte + 1, HPAGE_PMD_NR)", not max().
> > > >
> > > > Yes!
> > > >
> > > > > I'm also worried that the compiler can't optimize this since the body of
> > > > > the loop is complex, as with Dev's opinion [1].
> > > >
> > > > Why do we even have to optimize this? :)
> > > >
> > > > Premature ... ? :)
> > >
> > >
> > > I mean .... we don't, but the alternate is a one liner using max().
> >
> > I'm fine with the max(), but it still seems like adding complexity to
> > optimize something that is nowhere prove to really be a problem.
>
> Hi David, Dev,
>
> I use "*cur_progress += 1" at the beginning of the loop, the compiler
> optimize that. Assembly as follows:
>
> 60c1:	4d 29 ca        sub    %r9,%r10		// r10 is _pte, r9 is pte, r10 = _pte - pte
> 60c4:	b8 00 02 00 00  mov    $0x200,%eax	// eax = HPAGE_PMD_NR
> 60c9:	44 89 5c 24 10  mov    %r11d,0x10(%rsp)	//
> 60ce:	49 c1 fa 03     sar    $0x3,%r10	//
> 60d2:	49 83 c2 01     add    $0x1,%r10	// r10 += 1
> 60d6:	49 39 c2        cmp    %rax,%r10	// r10 = min(r10, eax)
> 60d9:	4c 0f 4f d0     cmovg  %rax,%r10	//
> 60dd:	44 89 55 00     mov    %r10d,0x0(%rbp)	// *cur_progress = r10
>
> To make the code simpler, Let us use "*cur_progress += 1".

Cool! Compiler did the right thing and the heavy lifting after all - we get
to keep it simple :p