[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170511.103538.1094530388932292836.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:35:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [v3 0/9] parallelized "struct page" zeroing
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:05:38 +0200
> Anyway, do you agree that doing the struct page initialization along
> with other writes to it shouldn't add a measurable overhead comparing
> to pre-zeroing of larger block of struct pages? We already have an
> exclusive cache line and doing one 64B write along with few other stores
> should be basically the same.
Yes, it should be reasonably cheap.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists