From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AC94313279
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 16:58:18 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1764003498; cv=none; b=FIAfNyl2h6yfzFWe+EYKVKi5Yub3xFXj/ZL04eglMr6FcVJ4BJqMkH8v1hpSg7J6yXu4hGHepBB7iPFI9cf1gh38R3pIwH8AxRNlLaGaRyPDM+zNkyEOjYrDeEvUND31xfSinP1vHLqwpSmyI8ZE3DtEW/A4/2WX1SHonNQGcuE=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1764003498; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=tMBhcqn9bceBvM5ZEFAmI77gEkyO2ji65s3mR9vK9Qw=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:
	 Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=ETp1/DOvy4c98zY1loHp8GiYXJwJ9BykqthkLASKNPWnqgbBL+C86+mgiTaT3Dy9XKjLrIZ5A/i9SbhI5BtjYOXrnjs4nTpw2ZQ+SwL8HKCclIniVU+nIjstBmQfahgsyUROcUw8AqRnhjvCrdu/R9epAlXgdkhYMTjdUehuL2w=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=UT5MuBnW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="UT5MuBnW"
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCCCCC4CEF1;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2025 16:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org;
	s=korg; t=1764003498;
	bh=tMBhcqn9bceBvM5ZEFAmI77gEkyO2ji65s3mR9vK9Qw=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UT5MuBnWn4wHxP/3GzpYbhHve1Mku91hqGOvYCM/bLeSkyKsSissdar2zDddiQYf5
	 Bw+BNJndd8KL8wqlWe7s5jcn6A55PnkufCc8q5MyTMAke4rKa3N1sWmijzveDl0MTk
	 Nal+wtbR45nPi+pGtzlXNYng+qtvddibSvjeDycU=
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:58:16 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ilias Stamatis <ilstam@amazon.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
 <david@kernel.org>, <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>,
 <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, <bhe@redhat.com>,
 <nh-open-source@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reinstate
 "resource: avoid unnecessary lookups in find_next_iomem_res()"
Message-Id: <20251124085816.07dbf5a4ec6235b2943840a0@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20251124165349.3377826-1-ilstam@amazon.com>
References: <20251124165349.3377826-1-ilstam@amazon.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 16:53:49 +0000 Ilias Stamatis <ilstam@amazon.com> wrote:

> Commit 97523a4edb7b ("kernel/resource: remove first_lvl / siblings_only
> logic") removed an optimization introduced by commit 756398750e11
> ("resource: avoid unnecessary lookups in find_next_iomem_res()"). That
> was not called out in the message of the first commit explicitly so it's
> not entirely clear whether removing the optimization happened
> inadvertently or not.
> 
> As the original commit message of the optimization explains there is no
> point considering the children of a subtree in find_next_iomem_res() if
> the top level range does not match. Reinstating the optimization results
> in significant performance improvements in systems with very large iomem
> maps when mmaping /dev/mem.

It would be great if we could quantify "significant performance
improvements"?