From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/mremap: Remove redundant checks inside vma_expandable()
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:14:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <210533b7-3b29-b6bd-24db-03e0c756a882@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4c182da0-6c84-df67-b173-6960fac0544a@suse.cz>
On 07/11/2017 11:56 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 08:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 11-07-17 09:58:42, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> here. This is hardly something that would save many cycles in a
>>>> relatively cold path.
>>> Though I have not done any detailed instruction level measurement,
>>> there is a reduction in real and system amount of time to execute
>>> the test with and without the patch.
>>>
>>> Without the patch
>>>
>>> real 0m2.100s
>>> user 0m0.162s
>>> sys 0m1.937s
>>>
>>> With this patch
>>>
>>> real 0m0.928s
>>> user 0m0.161s
>>> sys 0m0.756s
>> Are you telling me that two if conditions cause more than a second
>> difference? That sounds suspicious.
> It's removing also a call to get_unmapped_area(), AFAICS. That means a
> vma search?
I believe removing this function is responsible for the
increase in speed of the test execution.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/mremap: Remove redundant checks inside vma_expandable()
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:14:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <210533b7-3b29-b6bd-24db-03e0c756a882@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4c182da0-6c84-df67-b173-6960fac0544a@suse.cz>
On 07/11/2017 11:56 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 08:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 11-07-17 09:58:42, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> here. This is hardly something that would save many cycles in a
>>>> relatively cold path.
>>> Though I have not done any detailed instruction level measurement,
>>> there is a reduction in real and system amount of time to execute
>>> the test with and without the patch.
>>>
>>> Without the patch
>>>
>>> real 0m2.100s
>>> user 0m0.162s
>>> sys 0m1.937s
>>>
>>> With this patch
>>>
>>> real 0m0.928s
>>> user 0m0.161s
>>> sys 0m0.756s
>> Are you telling me that two if conditions cause more than a second
>> difference? That sounds suspicious.
> It's removing also a call to get_unmapped_area(), AFAICS. That means a
> vma search?
I believe removing this function is responsible for the
increase in speed of the test execution.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-11 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-10 11:10 [RFC] mm/mremap: Remove redundant checks inside vma_expandable() Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10 11:10 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-10 13:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-10 13:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 4:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 4:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 6:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 6:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 6:26 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-11 6:26 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-11 6:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 6:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 6:56 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-11 6:56 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-11 7:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 7:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 7:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 7:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 11:19 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:19 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:11 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:11 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:08 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:08 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11 11:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19 6:49 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-19 6:49 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:06 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 11:06 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 9:44 ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2017-07-11 9:44 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 4:29 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-07-11 4:29 ` Anshuman Khandual
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=210533b7-3b29-b6bd-24db-03e0c756a882@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.