From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336FAC433DB for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D167C207BC for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:45:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D167C207BC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E8A8B6B00B6; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E142D8D0011; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:45:31 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C8E388D000A; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:45:31 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0124.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.124]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2566B00B6 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A90362A for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:45:31 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77668214862.25.cats97_51148f0274d0 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AB21804E3A1 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:45:31 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: cats97_51148f0274d0 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4015 Received: from mail-lf1-f46.google.com (mail-lf1-f46.google.com [209.85.167.46]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f46.google.com with SMTP id l11so64455186lfg.0 for ; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 05:45:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cjj6uZMAh4bwqWKMhZWRFG4e725F45DY+i8GEvjt0RE=; b=dSG5hKrjTah0OQ6XYQ2SGfwkLcoZzvrowwwGGP1ej43f5r8iO6TJLsN+Ieu2YdVYPJ xHJLjyQr8J/MQOiXOdBlDXYTnBg93WZz+qZDCGVE0OSFIzTH4V4zTfXvvmB53LtBt6CX gYqgvzeMAm1UwkUzt1c2GR+vcCV5wv9C2bc1vyu+/tzU0wMeuWSDKSsaO9Uqf+K9PjKg nnfHY53JCWoQS8/avWXfmDjmEjPTI/j0d3m8ns7eaoDKB3eGXGcca9ae7WNwxyaIMU+l nEoClrvSUj/dsx1rqKSRR9jlDPokbQPRkxrf3wiXzlPBK4HMvypfA/F17cpnFl7zXI4h Yn6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cjj6uZMAh4bwqWKMhZWRFG4e725F45DY+i8GEvjt0RE=; b=dn0bJ5XqML6JSwz0EZ2PuMGi2QG3dOZFixf3lxQFW3GlLO5ATnBFbnW8dpGB0x2Ly9 722r293mV8mJcneqA01LvjdH3TLMcM/Jd2S/wyKodqxwR0/WwPQRILN/pAleowFUf41W y6WYkoCEW6xAh53MzFa0I8UwMdxLDYKMrHCrAbdsUodpoifr9Zr4oPzith03x/20wk0j HVma+mNxunWcxm6pgBaCD423adBrx79fTjlfu07iYr1V6B6SewgGBMs5+rmxPYKzc/j9 /7ojjGfGCyR8tByBK6JAyFdkFpPbS7CzIwqSLMtL8M5wI8rkw55KrtiaMVV8+Po9Ohpf ALhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+Rzqv6ioAGmORx24D3tEZcsRps7kc0gBnk5C61xnW3/nQhF6F V6fRQZI8eV16/ND/bkN4nZdQRe4d9wBCAF04yV8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxrOCIQRY85pxpq3s2QrJ2pl7CAhLmIZRFBlKzXWqfUyFWtvbyBVa4uiC2Q7qFYavNPyc/W/hgqV+Atv99q+I4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:154b:: with SMTP id 11mr34263557ljv.22.1609767929125; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 05:45:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201221162519.GA22504@open-light-1.localdomain> <20201222122312.GH874@casper.infradead.org> <20210104125122.GD13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20210104125122.GD13207@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Liang Li Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 21:45:17 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/4] speed up page allocation for __GFP_ZERO To: Michal Hocko Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Alexander Duyck , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Dan Williams , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , David Hildenbrand , Jason Wang , Dave Hansen , Liang Li , linux-mm , LKML , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: > > Win or not depends on its effect. For our case, it solves the issue > > that we faced, so it can be thought as a win for us. If others don't > > have the issue we faced, the result will be different, maybe they will > > be affected by the side effect of this feature. I think this is your > > concern behind the question. right? I will try to do more tests and > > provide more benchmark performance data. > > Yes, zeroying memory does have a noticeable overhead but we cannot > simply allow tasks to spil over this overhead to all other users by > default. So if anything this would need to be an opt-in feature > configurable by administrator. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs I know the overhead, so I add a switch in /sys/ to enable or disable it dynamically. Thanks Liang