[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:30:51 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
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 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:41:55 +0200
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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?
The new test-n-branch only happens on the first read fault against a
thp huge page, yes? In which case it's a quite infrequent event and I
suspect this isn't worth bothering about.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists