[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqD9ZRNtU1F6zBn/@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 20:49:57 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, jon.grimm@....com,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] huge page clearing optimizations
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:56:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I worry a bit about the insanity of the "gigantic" pages, and the
> mem_map_next() games it plays, but that code is from 2008 and I really
> doubt it makes any sense to keep around at least for x86. The source
> of that abomination is powerpc, and I do not think that whole issue
> with MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES makes any difference on x86, at least.
Oh, argh, I meant to delete mem_map_next(), and forgot.
If you need to use struct page (a later message hints you don't), just
use nth_page() directly. I optimised it so it's not painful except on
SPARSEMEM && !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP back in December in commit 659508f9c936.
And nobody cares about performance on SPARSEMEM && !SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
systems.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists