[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200611165910.6dwd3c7z5brimjbm@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:59:10 -0400
From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:16:02AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/9/20 3:54 PM, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Use max block size to minimize overhead on bare metal, where
> > + * alignment for memory hotplug isn't a concern.
> > + */
> > + if (hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE)) {
> > + bz = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE;
> > + goto done;
> > + }
>
> What ends up being the worst case scenario? Booting a really small
> bare-metal x86 system, say with 64MB or 128MB of RAM? What's the
> overhead there?
Might not be following you, so bear with me, but we only get to this check on a
system with a physical address end of at least MEM_SIZE_FOR_LARGE_BLOCK (64G),
and this would still (ever so slightly...) reduce overhead of memory block init
at boot in that case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists