[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121115094155.GG9676@otc-wbsnb-06>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:41:55 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/11] thp: lazy huge zero page allocation
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:37:09PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > Instead of allocating huge zero page on hugepage_init() we can postpone it
> > until first huge zero page map. It saves memory if THP is not in use.
> >
>
> Is it worth the branch on every non-write pagefault after that? The
> unlikely() is not going to help on x86. If thp is enabled in your
> .config (which isn't the default), then I think it's better to just
> allocate the zero huge page once and avoid any branches after that to
> lazily allocate it. (Or do it only when thp is set to "madvise" or
> "always" if booting with transparent_hugepage=never.)
I can rewrite the check to static_key if you want. Would it be better?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists