linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
	muchun.song@linux.dev, willy@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: Init page count in reserve_bootmem_region when MEMINIT_EARLY
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 10:16:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <abace691-e11f-ec08-a725-9e3b17935d8c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a67fc1bf-64e8-ce6c-f68a-52fe8b942860@linux.dev>

On 16.10.23 10:10, Yajun Deng wrote:
> 
> On 2023/10/16 14:33, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 05:29:19PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>> On 2023/10/13 16:48, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:53:22PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>>>> On 2023/10/12 17:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 10.10.23 04:31, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023/10/8 16:57, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That looks wrong. if the page count would by pure luck be 0
>>>>>>>>> already for hotplugged memory, you wouldn't clear the reserved
>>>>>>>>> flag.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These changes make me a bit nervous.
>>>>>>>> Is 'if (page_count(page) || PageReserved(page))' be safer? Or do I
>>>>>>>> need to do something else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about the following if statement? But it needs to add more patch
>>>>>>> like v1 ([PATCH 2/4] mm: Introduce MEMINIT_LATE context).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It'll be safer, but more complex. Please comment...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        if (context != MEMINIT_EARLY || (page_count(page) ||
>>>>>>> PageReserved(page)) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ideally we could make initialization only depend on the context, and not
>>>>>> check for count or the reserved flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This link is v1,
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230922070923.355656-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev/
>>>>>
>>>>> If we could make initialization only depend on the context, I'll modify it
>>>>> based on v1.
>>>> Although ~20% improvement looks impressive, this is only optimization of a
>>>> fraction of the boot time, and realistically, how much 56 msec saves from
>>>> the total boot time when you boot a machine with 190G of RAM?
>>> There are a lot of factors that can affect the total boot time. 56 msec
>>> saves may be insignificant.
>>>
>>> But if we look at the boot log, we'll see there's a significant time jump.
>>>
>>> before:
>>>
>>> [    0.250334] ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x508
>>> [    0.618994] Memory: 173413056K/199884452K available (18440K kernel code,
>>>
>>> after:
>>>
>>> [    0.260229] software IO TLB: area num 32.
>>> [    0.563497] Memory: 173413056K/199884452K available (18440K kernel code,
>>> Memory:
>>> Memory initialization is time consuming in the boot log.
>> You just confirmed that 56 msec is insignificant and then you send again
>> the improvement of ~60 msec in memory initialization.
>>
>> What does this improvement gain in percentage of total boot time?
> 
> 
> before:
> 
> [   10.692708] Run /init as init process
> 
> 
> after:
> 
> [   10.666290] Run /init as init process
> 
> 
> About 0.25%. The total boot time is variable, depending on how many
> drivers need to be initialized.
> 
> 
>>    
>>>> I still think the improvement does not justify the churn, added complexity
>>>> and special casing of different code paths of initialization of struct pages.
>>>
>>> Because there is a loop, if the order is MAX_ORDER, the loop will run 1024
>>> times. The following 'if' would be safer:
>>>
>>> 'if (context != MEMINIT_EARLY || (page_count(page) || >> PageReserved(page))
>>> {'
>> No, it will not.
>>
>> As the matter of fact any condition here won't be 'safer' because it makes
>> the code more complex and less maintainable.
>> Any future change in __free_pages_core() or one of it's callers will have
>> to reason what will happen with that condition after the change.
> 
> 
> To avoid introducing MEMINIT_LATE context and make code simpler. This
> might be a better option.
> 
> if (page_count(page) || PageReserved(page))

I'll have to side with Mike here; this change might not be worth it.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb



  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-16  8:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-28  8:33 [PATCH v4 0/2] mm: Don't set and reset page count in MEMINIT_EARLY Yajun Deng
2023-09-28  8:33 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] mm: pass page count and reserved to __init_single_page Yajun Deng
2023-09-29  8:19   ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-29  9:37     ` Yajun Deng
2023-09-28  8:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: Init page count in reserve_bootmem_region when MEMINIT_EARLY Yajun Deng
2023-09-29  8:30   ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-29  9:50     ` Yajun Deng
2023-09-29 10:02       ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-29 10:27         ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-01 18:59           ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-02  7:03             ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-02  8:47               ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-02  8:56                 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-02 11:10                   ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-02 11:25                     ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-03 14:38                       ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-05  5:06                         ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-05 14:04                           ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-12  9:19                             ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-12  9:36                               ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-02  8:30     ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-08  8:57       ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-10  2:31         ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-12  9:23           ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-12  9:53             ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-13  8:48               ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-13  9:29                 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-16  6:33                   ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-16  8:10                     ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-16  8:16                       ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2023-10-16  8:32                         ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-16  8:36                           ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-16 10:17                             ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-17  9:58                               ` Yajun Deng

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=abace691-e11f-ec08-a725-9e3b17935d8c@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yajun.deng@linux.dev \
    /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