[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/PoD: tighten conditions for checking super page
On 30/10/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote: > Since calling the function isn't cheap, try to avoid the call when we > know up front it won't help; see the code comment for details on those > conditions. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c > @@ -522,7 +522,6 @@ p2m_pod_decrease_reservation(struct doma > if ( unlikely(d->is_dying) ) > goto out_unlock; > > -recount: > pod = nonpod = ram = 0; > > /* Figure out if we need to steal some freed memory for our cache */ > @@ -562,15 +561,20 @@ recount: > goto out_entry_check; > } > > - /* Try to grab entire superpages if possible. Since the common case is > for drivers > - * to pass back singleton pages, see if we can take the whole page back > and mark the > - * rest PoD. */ > - if ( steal_for_cache > - && p2m_pod_zero_check_superpage(p2m, gpfn & ~(SUPERPAGE_PAGES-1))) > - { > - /* Since order may be arbitrary, we may have taken more or less > - * than we were actually asked to; so just re-count from scratch */ > - goto recount; > + /* > + * Try to grab entire superpages if possible. Since the common case is > for > + * drivers to pass back singleton pages, see if we can take the whole > page > + * back and mark the rest PoD. > + * No need to do this though if > + * - order >= SUPERPAGE_ORDER (the loop below will take care of this) > + * - not all of the pages were RAM (now knowing order < SUPERPAGE_ORDER) > + */ > + if ( steal_for_cache && order < SUPERPAGE_ORDER && (ram >> order) && > + p2m_pod_zero_check_superpage(p2m, gpfn & ~(SUPERPAGE_PAGES - 1)) ) > + { > + pod += ram; > + nonpod -= ram; > + ram = 0; +1 for the idea; a couple of comments: * I think it would be clearer to use "(ram == 1 << order)" instead of "ram >> order". I understand (ram >> order) will be non-zero only if ram == 1 << order, but why make people spend brain cycles trying to figure that out? * If we're going to assume that "ram >> order" implies "all the entries are ram", and furthermore that a positive return value implies "all ram was changed to pod", wouldn't it be better to do something like the following? pod = 1 << order nonpod = ram = 0 This would be more clearly correct if we change the comparison to ram == 1 << order. * steal_for_cache may now be wrong. I realize that since now ram == 0 that all the subsequent "steal_for_cache" expressions will end up as "false" anyway, but leaving invariants in an invalid state is sort of asking for trouble. I'd prefer you just update steal_for_cache; but if not, at least leave a comment there saying that it may be wrong and why it doesn't matter. Thanks, -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |