lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm: memblock: optimize memblock_find_in_range_node() to minimize the search work
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:24:53PM +0800, Lin Feng wrote:
> The memblock array is in ascending order and we traverse the memblock array in
> reverse order so we can add some simple check to reduce the search work.
>
> Tejun fix a underflow bug in 5d53cb27d8, but I think we could break there for
> the same reason.
>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lin Feng <linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 6259055..a710557 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -111,11 +111,18 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
> end = max(start, end);
>
> for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
> + /*
> + * exclude the regions out of the candidate range, since it's
> + * likely to find a suitable range, we ignore the worst case.
> + */
> + if (this_start >= end)
> + continue;
> +
> this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
> this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
>
> if (this_end < size)
> - continue;
> + break;

I don't know. This only saves looping when memblocks are below the
requested size, right? I don't think it would matter in any way and
would prefer to keep the logic as simple as possible.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-04 16:41    [W:0.040 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site