linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] hugetlb: parallelize hugetlb page allocation on boot

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:10:35 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Gang Li <gang.li@...ux.dev>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] hugetlb: parallelize hugetlb page allocation
 on boot

On 23.11.23 14:30, Gang Li wrote:
> From: Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
> 
> Inspired by these patches [1][2], this series aims to speed up the
> initialization of hugetlb during the boot process through
> parallelization.
> 
> It is particularly effective in large systems. On a machine equipped
> with 1TB of memory and two NUMA nodes, the time for hugetlb
> initialization was reduced from 2 seconds to 1 second.

Sorry to say, but why is that a scenario worth adding complexity for / 
optimizing for? You don't cover that, so there is a clear lack in the 
motivation.

2 vs. 1 second on a 1 TiB system is usually really just noise.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb