[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c74c021-f985-4cfc-8369-57fc525a8070@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:06:11 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, willy@...radead.org,
jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] x86/folio_zero_user: multi-page clearing
On 4/14/2025 12:35 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Performance for preempt=none|voluntary remains unchanged.
>
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y is the default on a number of major
> distributions, such as Ubuntu, and a lot of enterprise distro kernels -
> and this patch does nothing for them, for no good reason.
>
> So could you please provide a sensible size granularity cutoff of 16MB
> or so on non-preemptive kernels, instead of this weird build-time
> all-or-nothing binary cutoff based on preemption modes?
>
Agree with Ingo here. We are too harsh on none and voluntary with this
limit. At least 512KB size?
I will try to see if I can get numbers for different sizes that does not
interfere much with other workloads' perf. (in none/voluntary mode).
- Raghu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists