Suspicious error for CMA stress test
From: Vlastimil Babka <hidden>
Date: 2016-03-14 12:30:23
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On 03/14/2016 08:18 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 08:06:16AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:quoted
On 03/14/2016 07:49 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:quoted
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:07:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:quoted
On 03/11/2016 04:00 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: How about something like this? Just and idea, probably buggy (off-by-one etc.). Should keep away cost from <pageblock_order iterations@the expense of the relatively fewer >pageblock_order iterations.Hmm... I tested this and found that it's code size is a little bit larger than mine. I'm not sure why this happens exactly but I guess it would be related to compiler optimization. In this case, I'm in favor of my implementation because it looks like well abstraction. It adds one unlikely branch to the merge loop but compiler would optimize it to check it once.I would be surprised if compiler optimized that to check it once, as order increases with each loop iteration. But maybe it's smart enough to do something like I did by hand? Guess I'll check the disassembly.Okay. I used following slightly optimized version and I need to add 'max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER, pageblock_order + 1)' to yours. Please consider it, too.
Hmm, so this is bloat-o-meter on x86_64, gcc 5.3.1. CONFIG_CMA=y next-20160310 vs my patch (with added min_t as you pointed out): add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/1 up/down: 69/-5 (64) function old new delta free_one_page 833 902 +69 free_pcppages_bulk 1333 1328 -5 next-20160310 vs your patch: add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/0 up/down: 577/0 (577) function old new delta free_one_page 833 1187 +354 free_pcppages_bulk 1333 1556 +223 my patch vs your patch: add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/0 up/down: 513/0 (513) function old new delta free_one_page 902 1187 +285 free_pcppages_bulk 1328 1556 +228 The increase of your version is surprising, wonder what the compiler did. Otherwise I would like simpler/maintainable version, but this is crazy. Can you post your results? I wonder if your compiler e.g. decided to stop inlining page_is_buddy() or something.