Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 03/11] mm/gup: Applies counting method to monitor gup_pgd_range | From | Leonardo Bras <> | Date | Tue, 01 Oct 2019 16:40:59 -0300 |
| |
On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 12:04 -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 10/1/19 10:56 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 14:51 -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > > > On 9/27/19 4:40 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote: > ... > > > > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > > > > index 98f13ab37bac..7105c829cf44 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/gup.c > > > > +++ b/mm/gup.c > > > > @@ -2325,6 +2325,7 @@ static bool gup_fast_permitted(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > > > int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write, > > > > struct page **pages) > > > > { > > > > + struct mm_struct *mm; > > > > > > I don't think that this local variable adds any value, so let's not use it. > > > Similar point in a few other patches too. > > > > It avoids 1 deference of current->mm, it's a little performance gain. > > > > No, it isn't. :) > > Longer answer: at this level (by which I mean, "wrote the C code, haven't looked > at the generated asm yet, and haven't done a direct perf test yet"), none of us > C programmers are entitled to imagine that we can second guess both the compiler > and the CPU well enough to claim that declaring a local pointer variable on the > stack will even *affect* performance, much less know which way it will go! >
I did this based on how costly can be 'current', and I could notice reduction in assembly size most of the time. (powerpc) But I get what you mean, maybe the (possible) performance gain don't worth the extra work.
> The compiler at -O2 will *absolutely* optimize away any local variables that > it doesn't need. > > And that leads to how kernel programmers routinely decide about that kind of > variable: "does the variable's added clarity compensate for the extra visual > noise and for the need to manage the variable?"
That's a good way to decide it. :)
> > Here, and in most (all?) other points in the patchset where you've added an > mm local variable, the answer is no. >
Well, IMHO it's cleaner that way. But I get that other people may disagree.
> > ... start_lockless_pgtbl_walk(mm); > > > Minor: I'd like to rename this register_lockless_pgtable_walker(). > > > > > > > local_irq_disable(); > > > > gup_pgd_range(addr, end, gup_flags, pages, &nr); > > > > local_irq_enable(); > > > > + end_lockless_pgtbl_walk(mm); > > > > > > ...and deregister_lockless_pgtable_walker(). > > > > > > > I have no problem changing the name, but I don't register/deregister > > are good terms for this. > > > > I would rather use start/finish, begin/end, and so on. Register sounds > > like something more complicated than what we are trying to achieve > > here. > > > > OK, well, I don't want to bikeshed on naming more than I usually do, and > what you have is reasonable, so I'll leave that alone. :) > > thanks,
Thank for the feedback,
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |