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]

Message-ID: <db1b593a-41d9-444a-b3f4-f6bffe98634b@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 11:18:46 +0800
From:   Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Gang Li <gang.li@...ux.dev>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] hugetlb: parallelize hugetlb page allocation
 on boot


On 2023/11/25 04:00, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>> And there, the 65.2s won't be noise because that 12TB system is up by a snap
>> of a finger? :)
>>
> 
> In this single boot test, total boot time was 373.78s, so 1GB hugetlb
> allocation is 17.4% of that.

Thank you for sharing these data. Currently, I don't have access to a 
machine of such large capacity, so the benefits in my tests are not as 
pronounced.

I believe testing on a system of this scale would yield significant 
benefits.

> 
> Would love to see what the numbers would look like if 1GB pages were
> supported.
> 

Support for 1GB hugetlb is not yet perfect, so it wasn't included in v1. 
But I'm happy to refine and introduce 1GB hugetlb support in future 
versions.