Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [v3 0/9] parallelized "struct page" zeroing | From | Pasha Tatashin <> | Date | Tue, 9 May 2017 14:54:50 -0400 |
| |
Hi Michal,
> I like the idea of postponing the zeroing from the allocation to the > init time. To be honest the improvement looks much larger than I would > expect (Btw. this should be a part of the changelog rather than a > outside link).
The improvements are larger, because this time was never measured, as Linux does not have early boot time stamps. I added them for x86 and SPARC to emasure the performance. I am pushing those changes through separate patchsets.
> > The implementation just looks too large to what I would expect. E.g. do > we really need to add zero argument to the large part of the memblock > API? Wouldn't it be easier to simply export memblock_virt_alloc_internal > (or its tiny wrapper memblock_virt_alloc_core) and move the zeroing > outside to its 2 callers? A completely untested scratched version at the > end of the email.
I am OK, with this change. But, I do not really see a difference between:
memblock_virt_alloc_raw() and memblock_virt_alloc_core()
In both cases we use memblock_virt_alloc_internal(), but the only difference is that in my case we tell memblock_virt_alloc_internal() to zero the pages if needed, and in your case the other two callers are zeroing it. I like moving memblock_dbg() inside memblock_virt_alloc_internal()
> > Also it seems that this is not 100% correct either as it only cares > about VMEMMAP while DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT might be enabled also for > SPARSEMEM. This would suggest that we would zero out pages twice, > right?
Thank you, I will check this combination before sending out the next patch.
> > A similar concern would go to the memory hotplug patch which will > fall back to the slab/page allocator IIRC. On the other hand > __init_single_page is shared with the hotplug code so again we would > initialize 2 times.
Correct, when memory it hotplugged, to gain the benefit of this fix, and also not to regress by actually double zeroing "struct pages" we should not zero it out. However, I do not really have means to test it.
> > So I suspect more changes are needed. I will have a closer look tomorrow.
Thank you for reviewing this work. I will wait for your comments before sending out updated patches.
Pasha
| |