Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-129166-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <2cab01ce-7c5f-46d6-b8a4-c2a24c3f9a32@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:25:33 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/slub: simplify get_partial_node()
To: "Song, Xiongwei" <Xiongwei.Song@windriver.com>,
 "rientjes@google.com" <rientjes@google.com>, "cl@linux.com" <cl@linux.com>,
 "penberg@kernel.org" <penberg@kernel.org>,
 "iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
 "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 "roman.gushchin@linux.dev" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
 "42.hyeyoo@gmail.com" <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 "chengming.zhou@linux.dev" <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
References: <20240331021926.2732572-1-xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
 <20240331021926.2732572-4-xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
 <69089796-9a3b-41a1-9b7c-18c773b96aa2@suse.cz>
 <PH0PR11MB5192C3A3806D89D0CACC2CEEEC3D2@PH0PR11MB5192.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB5192C3A3806D89D0CACC2CEEEC3D2@PH0PR11MB5192.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/3/24 2:37 AM, Song, Xiongwei wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It could be tempting to use >= instead of > to achieve the same effect but
>> that would have unintended performance effects that would best be evaluated
>> separately.
> 
> I can run a test to measure Amean changes. But in terms of x86 assembly, there 
> should not be extra  instructions with ">=".
> 
> Did a simple test, for ">=" it uses "jle" instruction, while "jl" instruction is used for ">".
> No more instructions involved. So there should not be performance effects on x86.

Right, I didn't mean the code of the test, but how the difference of the
comparison affects how many cpu partial slabs would be put on the cpu
partial list here.

> Thanks,
> Xiongwei
> 
>> 
>> >
>> > +             put_cpu_partial(s, slab, 0);
>> > +             stat(s, CPU_PARTIAL_NODE);
>> > +             partial_slabs++;
>> > +
>> > +             if (partial_slabs > slub_get_cpu_partial(s) / 2)
>> > +                     break;
>> >       }
>> >       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
>> >       return partial;
>