Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] x86/clear_page: Introduce clear_pages()

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:51:39AM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> The intent was to use a large enough value that enables uarchs which do
> 'REP; STOS' optimizations, but not too large so we end up with high
> preemption latency.

How is selecting that number tied to uarches which can do REP; STOSB? I assume
you mean REP; STOSB where microcode magic glue aggregates larger moves than
just u64 chunks but only under certain conditions and so on..., and not
REP_GOOD where the microcode doesn't have problems with REP prefixes...

> > Why isn't this thing determined dynamically during boot or so, instead of
> > hardcoding it this way and then having to change it again later when bandwidth
> > increases?
> 
> I thought of doing that but given that the precise value doesn't matter
> very much (and there's enough slack in it in either direction) it seemed
> unnecessary to do at this point.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure that a boot determined value would really help given
> that the 'REP; STOS' bandwidth could be high or low based on how
> saturated the bus is.
> 
> Clearly some of this detail should have been in my commit message.

So you want to have, say, 8MB of contiguous range - if possible - and let the
CPU do larger clears. And it depends on the scheduling model. And it depends
on what the CPU can do wrt length aggregation. Close?

Well, I would like, please, for this to be properly documented why it was
selected this way and what *all* the aspects were to select it this way so
that we can know why it is there and we can change it in the future if
needed.

It is very hard to do so if the reasoning behind it has disappeared in the
bowels of lkml...

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette