-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm at linux-foundation.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 6:59 PM
To: Wang, Yalin
Cc: 'Kirill A. Shutemov'; 'arnd at arndb.de'; 'linux-arch at vger.kernel.org';
'linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org'; 'linux at arm.linux.org.uk'; 'linux-arm-
kernel at lists.infradead.org'
Subject: Re: [RFC] change non-atomic bitops method

On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:42:14 +0800 "Wang, Yalin" [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

I make a change in kernel to test hit/miss ratio:

Neat, thanks.

quoted

...

After use the phone some time:
root at D5303:/ # cat /proc/meminfo
VmallocUsed:       10348 kB
VmallocChunk:      75632 kB
__set_bit_miss_count:10002 __set_bit_success_count:1096661
__clear_bit_miss_count:359484 __clear_bit_success_count:3674617
__test_and_set_bit_miss_count:7 __test_and_set_bit_success_count:221
__test_and_clear_bit_miss_count:924611

__test_and_clear_bit_success_count:193

quoted

__test_and_clear_bit_miss_count has a very high miss rate.
In fact, I think set/clear/test_and_set(clear)_bit atomic version can

also

quoted

Be investigated to see its miss ratio,
I have not tested the atomic version,
Because it reside in different architectures.

Hopefully misses in test_and_X_bit are not a problem.  The CPU
implementation would be pretty stupid to go and dirty the cacheline
when it knows it didn't change anything.  But maybe I'm wrong about
that.

That we're running clear_bit against a cleared bit 10% of the time is a
bit alarming.  I wonder where that's coming from.

The enormous miss count in test_and_clear_bit() might indicate an
inefficiency somewhere.

I te-test the patch on 3.10 kernel.
The result like this:

VmallocChunk:   251498164 kB
__set_bit_miss_count:11730 __set_bit_success_count:1036316
__clear_bit_miss_count:209640 __clear_bit_success_count:4806556
__test_and_set_bit_miss_count:0 __test_and_set_bit_success_count:121
__test_and_clear_bit_miss_count:0 __test_and_clear_bit_success_count:445

__clear_bit miss rate is a little high,
I check the log, and most miss coming from this code:

<6>[  442.701798] [<ffffffc00021d084>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4c/0x58
<6>[  442.701805] [<ffffffc0002461a8>] __clear_bit+0x98/0xa4
<6>[  442.701813] [<ffffffc0003126ac>] __alloc_fd+0xc8/0x124
<6>[  442.701821] [<ffffffc000312768>] get_unused_fd_flags+0x28/0x34
<6>[  442.701828] [<ffffffc0002f9370>] do_sys_open+0x10c/0x1c0
<6>[  442.701835] [<ffffffc0002f9458>] SyS_openat+0xc/0x18
In __clear_close_on_exec(fd, fdt);



<6>[  442.695354] [<ffffffc00021d084>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4c/0x58
<6>[  442.695359] [<ffffffc0002461a8>] __clear_bit+0x98/0xa4
<6>[  442.695367] [<ffffffc000312340>] dup_fd+0x1d4/0x280
<6>[  442.695375] [<ffffffc00021b07c>] copy_process.part.56+0x42c/0xe38
<6>[  442.695382] [<ffffffc00021bb9c>] do_fork+0xe0/0x360
<6>[  442.695389] [<ffffffc00021beb4>] SyS_clone+0x10/0x1c
In __clear_open_fd(open_files - i, new_fdt);

Do we need test_bit() before clear_bit()at these 2 place?

Thanks