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

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 06:58:46 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 21:25 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > +#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?  
> 
> I thought about it but then we have 2 variants, unless I start moving
> the active_cpus into mm_context_t on all the 32-bit subarchs too, etc..

The two variants are just cleaner versions of the two variants you
already introduced.

static inline bool mm_activate_cpu(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
    if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(next))) {
        cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(next));
#if CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
        atomic_inc(&mm->context.active_cpus);
#endif
        smp_mb();
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

I think it would be nicer to put something like that with
mm_is_thread_local etc definitions so you can see how it all works
in one place.

> It gets messy either way.
> 
> > 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?  
> 
> Right, we could.
> 
> > Looks like a good optimisation though.  
> 
> Thx. It's a pre-req for further optimizations such as flushing the PID
> when a single threaded process moves, so we don't have to constantly
> scan the mask.

Yep, will be very interesting to see how much global tlbies can be
reduced.

Thanks,
Nick