From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, davem@davemloft.net,
pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com, mingo@kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
dave.jiang@intel.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
willy@infradead.org, vbabka@suse.cz, khalid.aziz@oracle.com,
ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [mm PATCH v5 0/7] Deferred page init improvements
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:55:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181115015511.GB2353@rapoport-lnx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e8218eb-80bf-fc02-ae56-42ccfddb572e@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 04:50:23PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/2018 7:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Mon 05-11-18 13:19:25, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>This patchset is essentially a refactor of the page initialization logic
> >>that is meant to provide for better code reuse while providing a
> >>significant improvement in deferred page initialization performance.
> >>
> >>In my testing on an x86_64 system with 384GB of RAM and 3TB of persistent
> >>memory per node I have seen the following. In the case of regular memory
> >>initialization the deferred init time was decreased from 3.75s to 1.06s on
> >>average. For the persistent memory the initialization time dropped from
> >>24.17s to 19.12s on average. This amounts to a 253% improvement for the
> >>deferred memory initialization performance, and a 26% improvement in the
> >>persistent memory initialization performance.
> >>
> >>I have called out the improvement observed with each patch.
> >
> >I have only glanced through the code (there is a lot of the code to look
> >at here). And I do not like the code duplication and the way how you
> >make the hotplug special. There shouldn't be any real reason for that
> >IMHO (e.g. why do we init pfn-at-a-time in early init while we do
> >pageblock-at-a-time for hotplug). I might be wrong here and the code
> >reuse might be really hard to achieve though.
>
> Actually it isn't so much that hotplug is special. The issue is more that
> the non-hotplug case is special in that you have to perform a number of
> extra checks for things that just aren't necessary for the hotplug case.
>
> If anything I would probably need a new iterator that would be able to take
> into account all the checks for the non-hotplug case and then provide ranges
> of PFNs to initialize.
>
> >I am also not impressed by new iterators because this api is quite
> >complex already. But this is mostly a detail.
>
> Yeah, the iterators were mostly an attempt at hiding some of the complexity.
> Being able to break a loop down to just an iterator provding the start of
> the range and the number of elements to initialize is pretty easy to
> visualize, or at least I thought so.
Just recently we had a discussion about overlapping for_each_mem_range()
and for_each_mem_pfn_range(), but unfortunately it appears that no mailing
list was cc'ed by the original patch author :(
In short, there was a spelling fix in one of them and Michal pointed out
that their functionality overlaps.
I have no objection for for_each_free_mem_pfn_range_in_zone() and
__next_mem_pfn_range_in_zone(), but probably we should consider unifying
the older iterators before we introduce a new one?
> >Thing I do not like is that you keep microptimizing PageReserved part
> >while there shouldn't be anything fundamental about it. We should just
> >remove it rather than make the code more complex. I fell more and more
> >guilty to add there actually.
>
> I plan to remove it, but don't think I can get to it in this patch set.
>
> I was planning to submit one more iteration of this patch set early next
> week, and then start focusing more on the removal of the PageReserved bit
> for hotplug. I figure it is probably going to be a full patch set onto
> itself and as you pointed out at the start of this email there is already
> enough code to review without adding that.
>
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-15 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-05 21:19 [mm PATCH v5 0/7] Deferred page init improvements Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:19 ` [mm PATCH v5 1/7] mm: Use mm_zero_struct_page from SPARC on all 64b architectures Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:19 ` [mm PATCH v5 2/7] mm: Drop meminit_pfn_in_nid as it is redundant Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:19 ` [mm PATCH v5 3/7] mm: Implement new zone specific memblock iterator Alexander Duyck
2018-11-09 23:26 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-09 23:58 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 0:11 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-05 21:19 ` [mm PATCH v5 4/7] mm: Initialize MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES at a time instead of doing larger sections Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 1:02 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-19 18:53 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:19 ` [mm PATCH v5 5/7] mm: Move hot-plug specific memory init into separate functions and optimize Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 2:07 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-05 21:19 ` [mm PATCH v5 6/7] mm: Add reserved flag setting to set_page_links Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 2:11 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-05 21:20 ` [mm PATCH v5 7/7] mm: Use common iterator for deferred_init_pages and deferred_free_pages Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 4:13 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-12 15:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-09 21:15 ` [mm PATCH v5 0/7] Deferred page init improvements Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-09 23:14 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 0:00 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-10 0:46 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-10 1:16 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-12 19:10 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-12 20:37 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-12 16:25 ` Daniel Jordan
2018-11-14 15:07 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-14 19:12 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-11-14 21:35 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-15 0:50 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-15 1:55 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2018-11-15 19:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2018-11-15 8:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-15 16:02 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-15 16:40 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181115015511.GB2353@rapoport-lnx \
--to=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=khalid.aziz@oracle.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).