[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C48D5A.4010602@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:28:58 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, holt@....com, travis@....com,
rob@...dley.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
yinghai@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Delay initializing of large sections of memory
On 06/21/2013 10:18 AM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>>>
>> Since you made it a compile time option, it would be good to know how
>> much code it adds, but otherwise I agree with Greg here... this really
>> shouldn't need to be an option. It *especially* shouldn't need to be a
>> hand-set runtime option (which looks quite complex, to boot.)
> The patchset as a whole is just over 400 lines so it doesn't add alot.
> If I were to pull the .config option it would probably remove 30 lines.
I'm more concerned about bytes of code.
> The command line option is too complex but some of the data I haven't
> found a way to get at runtime yet.
I think that is probably key.
>> I suspect the cutoff for this should be a lot lower than 8 TB even, more
>> like 128 GB or so. The only concern is to not set the cutoff so low
>> that we can end up running out of memory or with suboptimal NUMA
>> placement just because of this.
> Even at lower amounts of ram there is an positive impact.I it knocks
> time off
> boot even at as small as a 1TB of ram.
I am not surprised.
-hpa
--
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