[PATCH 5/6] powerpc/mm: Optimize detection of thread local mm's

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:28:02 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> Instead of comparing the whole CPU mask every time, let's
> keep a counter of how many bits are set in the mask. Thus
> testing for a local mm only requires testing if that counter
> is 1 and the current CPU bit is set in the mask.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h |  3 +++
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h   |  9 +++++++++
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/tlb.h           | 11 ++++++++++-
>  arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c   |  2 ++
>  4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h
> index 1a220cdff923..c3b00e8ff791 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h
> @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ typedef struct {
>  	mm_context_id_t id;
>  	u16 user_psize;		/* page size index */
>  
> +	/* Number of bits in the mm_cpumask */
> +	atomic_t active_cpus;
> +
>  	/* NPU NMMU context */
>  	struct npu_context *npu_context;
>  
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index ff1aeb2cd19f..cf8f50cd4030 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -96,6 +96,14 @@ static inline void switch_mm_pgdir(struct task_struct *tsk,
>  				   struct mm_struct *mm) { }
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
> +static inline void inc_mm_active_cpus(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	atomic_inc(&mm->context.active_cpus);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void inc_mm_active_cpus(struct mm_struct *mm) { }
> +#endif

This is a bit awkward. Can we just move the entire function to test
cpumask and set / increment into helper functions and define them
together with mm_is_thread_local, so it's all in one place?

The extra atomic does not need to be defined when it's not used either.

Also does it make sense to define it based on NR_CPUS > BITS_PER_LONG?
If it's <= then it should be similar load and compare, no?

Looks like a good optimisation though.

Thanks,
Nick