[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200723112926.GB7315@gaia>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:29:26 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: "liwei (CM)" <liwei213@...wei.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"Xiaqing (A)" <saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com>,
"Chenfeng (puck)" <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>,
butao <butao@...ilicon.com>,
fengbaopeng <fengbaopeng2@...ilicon.com>,
"nsaenzjulienne@...e.de" <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
"steve.capper@....com" <steve.capper@....com>,
"Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
sujunfei <sujunfei2@...ilicon.com>,
zhaojiapeng <zhaojiapeng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] arm64: mm: free unused memmap for sparse
memory model that define VMEMMAP
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 01:40:34PM +0000, liwei (CM) wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:41:17AM +0000, liwei (CM) wrote:
> > > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:32:03PM +0800, Wei Li wrote:
> > > > > For the memory hole, sparse memory model that define
> > > > > SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP do not free the reserved memory for the page
> > > > > map, this patch do it.
> > > >
> > > > Are there numbers showing how much memory is actually freed?
> > > >
> > > > The freeing of empty memmap would become rather complex with these
> > > > changes, do the memory savings justify it?
> > >
> > > In the sparse memory model, the size of a section is 1 GB
> > > (SECTION_SIZE_BITS 30) by default.
> >
> > Can we reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS instead? Say 26?
>
> Yes, you are right, reduce SECTION_SIZE_BITS to 26 can save almost the
> same memory as the patch.
>
> 1) However, it is not clear whether changing the section size has any
> other impact.
Well, we should analyse this.
> 2) Just like the flat memory model and the sparse memory model that
> does not define VMEMMAP, both of them have their own ways to free
> unused memmap. I think we've given a similar way for sparse memory
> define VMEMMAP.
I think we did it for flatmem initially (on arm32) and added support for
sparsemem later on, so free_unused_memmap() had to cope with sparse
sections. On arm64 we introduced vmemmap support and didn't bother with
the freeing at all because of the added complexity of the vmemmap page
tables.
I wonder whether we should just disallow flatmem and non-vmemmap
sparsemem on arm64. Is there any value in keeping them around?
> 3) This explicit free unused memmap method does reduce unnecessary
> memory waste for users who do not notice the section size
> modification.
But if we changed SECTION_SIZE_BITS in the mainline kernel, then we
wouldn't need additional code to free the unused memmap.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists