From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: osalvador@suse.de, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
dan.j.williams@gmail.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Get rid of shrink code - memory-hotplug]
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:32:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207103200.GV1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42699b27-c214-91fd-e7e9-d34e16e9bf9f@suse.cz>
On Fri 07-12-18 10:54:50, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/5/18 8:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [Cc Vlastimil]
> >
> > On Tue 04-12-18 13:43:31, osalvador@suse.de wrote:
> >> On 2018-12-04 12:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> > If I am not wrong, zone_contiguous is a pure mean for performance
> >>> improvement, right? So leaving zone_contiguous unset is always save. I
> >>> always disliked the whole clear/set_zone_contiguous thingy. I wonder if
> >>> we can find a different way to boost performance there (in the general
> >>> case). Or is this (zone_contiguous) even worth keeping around at all for
> >>> now? (do we have performance numbers?)
> >>
> >> It looks like it was introduced by 7cf91a98e607
> >> ("mm/compaction: speed up pageblock_pfn_to_page() when zone is contiguous").
> >>
> >> The improve numbers are in the commit.
> >> So I would say that we need to keep it around.
> >
> > Is that still the case though?
>
> Well, __pageblock_pfn_to_page() has to be called for each pageblock in
> compaction, when zone_contiguous is false. And that's unchanged since
> the introduction of zone_contiguous, so the numbers should still hold.
OK, this means that we have to carefully re-evaluate zone_contiguous for
each offline operation.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-07 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-04 9:26 osalvador
2018-12-04 11:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-12-04 12:43 ` osalvador
2018-12-05 19:12 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-07 9:54 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-12-07 10:32 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-12-07 10:35 ` osalvador
2018-12-10 13:53 ` osalvador
2018-12-10 15:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2018-12-10 17:16 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-12 8:44 ` osalvador
2018-12-05 19:07 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181207103200.GV1286@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox