[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24277842-c920-4a12-57d1-2ebcdf3c1534@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:44:29 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rkrcmar@...hat.com, alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] kvm: Add guest side support for free memory hints
On 2/4/19 10:15 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST
> +#include <linux/jump_label.h>
> +extern struct static_key_false pv_free_page_hint_enabled;
> +
> +#define HAVE_ARCH_FREE_PAGE
> +void __arch_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
> +static inline void arch_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> +{
> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&pv_free_page_hint_enabled))
> + __arch_free_page(page, order);
> +}
> +#endif
So, this ends up with at least a call, a branch and a ret added to the
order-0 paths, including freeing pages to the per-cpu-pageset lists.
That seems worrisome.
What performance testing has been performed to look into the overhead
added to those paths?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists