[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1586866432.g0r7udmtjr.astroid@bobo.none>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 22:23:11 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] huge vmalloc mappings
Excerpts from David Rientjes's message of April 14, 2020 10:27 am:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
>> We can get a significant win with larger mappings for some of the big
>> global hashes.
>>
>> Since RFC, relevant architectures have added p?d_leaf accessors so no
>> real arch changes required, and I changed it not to allocate huge
>> mappings for modules and a bunch of other fixes.
>>
>
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> Any performance numbers to share besides the git diff in the last patch in
> the series? I'm wondering if anything from mmtests or lkp-tests makes
> sense to try?
Hey, no I don't have any other tests I've run. Some of the networking
hashes do make use of it as well though, and might see a few % in
the right kind of workload. There's probably a bunch of other stuff
where it could help a little bit, looking through the tree, I just don't
have anything specific.
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists