Message-ID: <87qzrujxu0.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:00:23 -0800
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@...edance.com>
Cc: muchun.song@...ux.dev, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...nel.org,
        fvdl@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        osalvador@...e.de, mjguzik@...il.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        joao.m.martins@...cle.com, ankur.a.arora@...cle.com,
        raghavendra.kt@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Introduce a huge-page pre-zeroing mechanism


Li Zhe <lizhe.67@...edance.com> writes:

> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:05:01 +0800, muchun.song@...ux.dev wrote:
>
>> > On Jan 7, 2026, at 19:31, Li Zhe <lizhe.67@...edance.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > This patchset is based on this commit[1]("mm/hugetlb: optionally
>> > pre-zero hugetlb pages").
>>
>> I’d like you to add a brief summary here that roughly explains
>> what concerns the previous attempts raised and whether the
>> current proposal has already addressed those concerns, so more
>> people can quickly grasp the context.
>
> In my opinion, the main concerns raised in the preceding discussion[1]
> may be summarized as follows:
>
> (1): The CPU cost of background zeroing is not attributable to the
> task that consumes the pages, breaking fairness and cgroup accounting.
>
> (2) Policy (when, how many threads) is hard-coded in the kernel. User
> space lacks adequate means of control.
>
> (3) Comparable functionality is already available in user space. (QEMU
> support parallel preallocation)
>
> (4) Faster zeroing method is provied in kernel[2].
>
> In my view, these concerns have already been addressed by this patchset.
>
> It merely supplies the tools and leaves all policy decisions to user
> space; the kernel just performs the zeroing on behalf of the user,
> thereby resolving concerns (1) and (2).
>
> Regarding concern (3), I am aware that QEMU has implemented a parallel
> page-touch mechanism, which does reduce VM creation time; nevertheless,
> in our measurements it still consumes a non-trivial amount of time.
> (According to feedback from QEMU colleagues, bringing up a 2 TB VM
> still requires more than 40 seconds for zeroing)
>
>> > Fresh hugetlb pages are zeroed out when they are faulted in,
>> > just like with all other page types. This can take up a good
>> > amount of time for larger page sizes (e.g. around 250
>> > milliseconds for a 1G page on a Skylake machine).
>> >
>> > This normally isn't a problem, since hugetlb pages are typically
>> > mapped by the application for a long time, and the initial
>> > delay when touching them isn't much of an issue.
>> >
>> > However, there are some use cases where a large number of hugetlb
>> > pages are touched when an application starts (such as a VM backed
>> > by these pages), rendering the launch noticeably slow.
>> >
>> > On an Skylake platform running v6.19-rc2, faulting in 64 × 1 GB huge
>> > pages takes about 16 seconds, roughly 250 ms per page. Even with
>> > Ankur’s optimizations[2], the time drops only to ~13 seconds,
>> > ~200 ms per page, still a noticeable delay.
>
> As for concern (4), I believe it is orthogonal to this patchset, and
> the cover letter already contains a performance comparison that
> demonstrates the additional benefit.

That comparison isn't quite apples to apples though. In the fault
workoad above, you are looking at single threaded zeroing but
realistically clearing pages at VM init is multi-threaded (QEMU does
that as David describes).

Also Skylake has probably one of the slowest REP; STOS implementations
I've tried.

--
ankur

Powered by blists - more mailing lists