Received: by 10.223.164.221 with SMTP id h29csp2020972wrb; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Tu8dtCiHrfrjBeSkYYOt0oEBZRdq7aBQ7RLZqWpCrDvZXuCYh+7qiwfRnlztaJ5ii9Aonl X-Received: by 10.159.244.137 with SMTP id y9mr1898282plr.211.1509623171565; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1509623171; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ofLV5f07m427jUUCCmX/KefT8e0AKcptwh5S2/n/x0vhp1Fy/9W3n5FOB6Zi0n33ev gx1cDKW+6KWMeo33mPBDViWLCvXoFECr5/BFBkr+TX1enJzzRMRF3kHD2SM1THsxNOr7 GYpJtrsXyDb3I81in6Ndt0MqqMkBAGvLbmA8h7fLnwqIilQTy16h2EMY6GjtPVILLo1u Nhw8jb0dqr0jcVxe8V0OsZNalQkHYQz+4DiTXmTnZeMy1tclKCxvLBQx/V5g9oJ0FKy7 Af7JmUD2fW2uEuaaWj6vpAprCl1ASJ50uO5+2qqa9WBbRLoNhBsdKisvI7AkQlsvJoop ketQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:from:cc:references:to :subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=Qtdgjacn0HIc6UhDcVr+csE+/dc9KUMiU8IvUKr4krU=; b=BDsW8qxKfdtPVNZYD2i/3GE1RohlTaEvqmknk1cDZgKNOsLTww3yuN+A2ddEOOOgr9 BnCX1unrOkJCWn/s/8h3/Tm4tlkjcTYWaML/lBkfulkrzEAc8jz9n9GEV58Kk3nVDezQ Za3o2JKnjUeaJh8gSLcmZXeLj9DqM2zn4OKwIl3HSgsC6f0LSUr/Iz9/s+ejroUUE36I O37FxBLOXqVWR1hzMMavV/MpRrNCcizsIdK2SjqQINBeUiWfDYmO/DPer7T8deVAhEMq hqLtQksCsdNk4RJTj5lim9dXRDezm+tO2sI9AOmGjhqCfub5xny+W0tQg096+D9WWXJM fhiw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ay2si1939967plb.244.2017.11.02.04.45.58; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754519AbdKBLpD (ORCPT + 96 others); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:45:03 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:39618 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbdKBLpB (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:45:01 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vA2BirfQ133655 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:45:00 -0400 Received: from e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dyyv8syqb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:44:59 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:55 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.140) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:53 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id vA2Biq1n23592986; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:44:52 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7C64C046; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:40:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678C64C040; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:40:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.122.211.24]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:40:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/swap: Use page flags to determine LRU list in __activate_page() To: Vlastimil Babka , Michal Hocko , Anshuman Khandual References: <20171019145657.11199-1-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171019153322.c4uqalws7l7fdzcx@dhcp22.suse.cz> <23110557-b2db-9f4a-d072-ad58fd0c1931@suse.cz> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shli@kernel.org From: Anshuman Khandual Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:14:40 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <23110557-b2db-9f4a-d072-ad58fd0c1931@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17110211-0040-0000-0000-000003E9BA4E X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17110211-0041-0000-0000-000025EC452F Message-Id: <40de21c5-9f6e-d34a-6db5-445c43a1266b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-11-02_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1711020153 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2017 06:15 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 10/19/2017 05:33 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Thu 19-10-17 20:26:57, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>> Its already assumed that the PageActive flag is clear on the input >>> page, hence page_lru(page) will pick the base LRU for the page. In >>> the same way page_lru(page) will pick active base LRU, once the >>> flag PageActive is set on the page. This change of LRU list should >>> happen implicitly through the page flags instead of being hard >>> coded. >> >> The patch description tells what but it doesn't explain _why_? Does the >> resulting code is better, more optimized or is this a pure readability >> thing? >> >> All I can see is that page_lru is more complex and a large part of it >> can be optimized away which has been done manually here. I suspect the >> compiler can deduce the same thing. > > We shouldn't overestimate the compiler (or the objective conditions it > has) for optimizing stuff away: > > After applying the patch: > > ./scripts/bloat-o-meter swap_before.o mm/swap.o > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 160/0 (160) > function old new delta > __activate_page 708 868 +160 > Total: Before=13538, After=13698, chg +1.18% > > I don't think we want that, it's not exactly a cold code... Yeah, makes sense. From 1582777300570682569@xxx Tue Oct 31 12:47:40 +0000 2017 X-GM-THRID: 1581706618333065037 X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums