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=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 83FFCC433DB for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BC821D93 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:44:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 21BC821D93 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 54D588D0024; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4FDA18D001C; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:44:24 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 413888D0024; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:44:24 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0134.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.134]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1E58D001C for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 14:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47828248047 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:44:23 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77669119206.08.bells78_0602ab1274d2 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89511819E76F for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:44:23 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: bells78_0602ab1274d2 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4378 Received: from mail-ed1-f50.google.com (mail-ed1-f50.google.com [209.85.208.50]) by imf44.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f50.google.com with SMTP id cm17so28613450edb.4 for ; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 11:44:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rP6JMMmN2qDx0vY3UL4gUA6b6UKruldSZyuo0iGykOg=; b=PjxBCzAlllrQggSRUGJfQNSuIopENh3Tqqzt/7RRTb6hLC/P7UDNt31vlXRBGg5zol 3utT36Rb1LJGR8DknNAVpi/teLnQFlGGTK8EX8Dmh6q6BsBucmQW5TnK5y3oVvsjA2/E QeOr/wncwGiABC2S/A6PWGg8fp2CfwFCZQPRjISiuVB7dVbevqym7L2adJrqEZOEsYa3 84weLdY46t5Rg9xJpTFFSZ47qKXQJJiXqRVeh08NSJND2xwvvzTs/XHUDOIP9AqAhGPD GHZbUVG/6lTNQOLvYgpPqGNS4BI757RkFAqhOaFwkXIEv+iHJH1uonwCIDZjGtGPnz3z f3FA== 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=rP6JMMmN2qDx0vY3UL4gUA6b6UKruldSZyuo0iGykOg=; b=Gw1T24+jinpuhkof/cZb7+NDgtMPLhK6diVONUVUIc5kOSXv/+T8GWweZ8eWDqFezs tQdh2dgtO4YaO5hVI/0V4cpJLCk98pwr2KYAPbjLHO/aaWRkq9WI7BrlMIR9jJA9vE+B suO6EjrQRBATiJ5HzORfI2XME2BAmQ10SCNhcrB9FPAA2MFESOZJp5fJiim4AMy04vkf 4HolyGoedvh5cT2qlCpi47H221D9KqMjnhUnMDEyo1jOZgD+haYsqlUR6m9rE+5KHcLI +mMVPZt69aLYqh/GGrHSAN+qVysogrT+UEZCKKmdxRBHUv4uGe5+dyva3L9RKc2YBNZD UXPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KyYOO818ogZsmMaMRK2qrq78Hj+ASLGKb5WgTG6rDaZe42Quy abB3RJjNsxECyR5fLJGzaRMXv1xt7GhU8NcKPH59Ng== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxM5u0mPWYjqwv13UO1NgJU5Gjj6vsx1dKrs7kAvLR/LzlFcy/fYt6pCYA6VMk0dl4Dbt+XvD5Me2QpaPWn6Tw= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c3cd:: with SMTP id l13mr71465283edr.97.1609789461007; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 11:44:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201221163024.GA22532@open-light-1.localdomain> <0e8b6a2f-527d-7c77-efcf-04f21ef2a77c@intel.com> <20210104192753.GD22407@casper.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20210104192753.GD22407@casper.infradead.org> From: Dan Williams Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:44:15 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 4/4] mm: pre zero out free pages to speed up page allocation for __GFP_ZERO To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Dave Hansen , Alexander Duyck , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , David Hildenbrand , Jason Wang , Michal Hocko , Liang Li , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , 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: On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:28 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:19:13AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 12/21/20 8:30 AM, Liang Li wrote: > > > --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h > > > @@ -137,6 +137,9 @@ enum pageflags { > > > #endif > > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT > > > PG_arch_2, > > > +#endif > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREZERO_PAGE > > > + PG_zero, > > > #endif > > > __NR_PAGEFLAGS, > > > > I don't think this is worth a generic page->flags bit. > > > > There's a ton of space in 'struct page' for pages that are in the > > allocator. Can't we use some of that space? > > I was going to object to that too, but I think the entire approach is > flawed and needs to be thrown out. It just nukes the caches in extremely > subtle and hard to measure ways, lowering overall system performance. At a minimum the performance analysis should at least try to quantify that externalized cost. Certainly that overhead went somewhere. Maybe if this overhead was limited to run when the CPU would otherwise go idle, but that might mean it never runs in practice...