lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] vmpressure: wake up work only when there is registration event
On Mon 13-09-21 08:54:01, yongw.pur@gmail.com wrote:
> From: wangyong <wang.yong12@zte.com.cn>
>
> Use the global variable num_events to record the number of vmpressure
> events registered by the system, and wake up work only when there is
> registration event.
> Usually, the vmpressure event is not registered in the system, this patch
> can avoid waking up work and doing nothing.

How much of an improvement does this bring?

> Refer to Michal Hocko's suggestion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YR%2FNRJEhPKRQ1r22@dhcp22.suse.cz/

let me also point out that we do have means to implement conditional
branches with a zero overhead. Have a look at static branches.

> Tested-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: wangyong <wang.yong12@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> mm/vmpressure.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmpressure.c b/mm/vmpressure.c
> index 76518e4..dfac76b 100644
> --- a/mm/vmpressure.c
> +++ b/mm/vmpressure.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ static const unsigned int vmpressure_level_critical = 95;
> */
> static const unsigned int vmpressure_level_critical_prio = ilog2(100 / 10);
>
> +/*
> + * Count the number of vmpressure events registered in the system.
> + */
> +static atomic_t num_events = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> +
> static struct vmpressure *work_to_vmpressure(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> return container_of(work, struct vmpressure, work);
> @@ -277,7 +282,7 @@ void vmpressure(gfp_t gfp, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool tree,
> vmpr->tree_reclaimed += reclaimed;
> spin_unlock(&vmpr->sr_lock);
>
> - if (scanned < vmpressure_win)
> + if (scanned < vmpressure_win || atomic_read(&num_events) == 0)
> return;
> schedule_work(&vmpr->work);
> } else {

This is a very odd place to put the check on. It is past locks being
held and schedule_work on it's own is unlikely to provide a big
overhead. I would have expected to implement the check at the very
beginning of vmpressure()

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-13 18:04    [W:0.020 / U:0.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site