From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753093AbdJTQXz (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:23:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:50825 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752065AbdJTQXw (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:23:52 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RT6H8cStTR2IwA+G74mJzWsnUbfld4fyKhh5Ar+jJpTu3qgqNO7emIpIDThdeDJgOlDeHrsg== Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:23:49 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Cyrill Gorcunov , Borislav Petkov , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Boot-time switching between 4- and 5-level paging for 4.15, Part 1 Message-ID: <20171020162349.3kwhdgv7qo45w4lh@node.shutemov.name> References: <20170929140821.37654-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20171003082754.no6ym45oirah53zp@node.shutemov.name> <20171017154241.f4zaxakfl7fcrdz5@node.shutemov.name> <20171020081853.lmnvaiydxhy5c63t@gmail.com> <20171020094152.skx5sh5ramq2a3vu@black.fi.intel.com> <20171020152346.f6tjybt7i5kzbhld@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171020152346.f6tjybt7i5kzbhld@gmail.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:23:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:18:53AM +0000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:27:54AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:08:15PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > > The first bunch of patches that prepare kernel to boot-time switching > > > > > > between paging modes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review and consider applying. > > > > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > > > Ingo, is there anything I can do to get review easier for you? > > > > > > Yeah, what is the conclusion on the sub-discussion of patch #2: > > > > > > [PATCH 2/6] mm/zsmalloc: Prepare to variable MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS > > > > > > ... do we want to skip it entirely and use the other 5 patches? > > > > Yes, please. MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS not variable yet in this part of the series. > > > > And I will post some version the patch in the next part, if it will be > > required. > > Could we add TRULY_MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS (with a better name), to be used in places > where memory footprint is not a big concern? That's what I did in the patch. See MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS. Not sure how good the name is. > Or, could we keep MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS constant, and introduce a _different_ constant > that is dynamic, and which could be used in the cases where the 5-level paging > config causes too much memory footprint in the common 4-level paging case? This is more labor intensive case with unclear benefit. Dynamic MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS doesn't cause any issue in waste majority of cases. -- Kirill A. Shutemov From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f197.google.com (mail-wr0-f197.google.com [209.85.128.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9436B025F for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:23:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f197.google.com with SMTP id 11so3035385wrb.10 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id x28sor937478eda.19.2017.10.20.09.23.51 for (Google Transport Security); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:23:49 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Boot-time switching between 4- and 5-level paging for 4.15, Part 1 Message-ID: <20171020162349.3kwhdgv7qo45w4lh@node.shutemov.name> References: <20170929140821.37654-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20171003082754.no6ym45oirah53zp@node.shutemov.name> <20171017154241.f4zaxakfl7fcrdz5@node.shutemov.name> <20171020081853.lmnvaiydxhy5c63t@gmail.com> <20171020094152.skx5sh5ramq2a3vu@black.fi.intel.com> <20171020152346.f6tjybt7i5kzbhld@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171020152346.f6tjybt7i5kzbhld@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Cyrill Gorcunov , Borislav Petkov , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:23:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:18:53AM +0000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:27:54AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 05:08:15PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > > The first bunch of patches that prepare kernel to boot-time switching > > > > > > between paging modes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review and consider applying. > > > > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > > > Ingo, is there anything I can do to get review easier for you? > > > > > > Yeah, what is the conclusion on the sub-discussion of patch #2: > > > > > > [PATCH 2/6] mm/zsmalloc: Prepare to variable MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS > > > > > > ... do we want to skip it entirely and use the other 5 patches? > > > > Yes, please. MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS not variable yet in this part of the series. > > > > And I will post some version the patch in the next part, if it will be > > required. > > Could we add TRULY_MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS (with a better name), to be used in places > where memory footprint is not a big concern? That's what I did in the patch. See MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS. Not sure how good the name is. > Or, could we keep MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS constant, and introduce a _different_ constant > that is dynamic, and which could be used in the cases where the 5-level paging > config causes too much memory footprint in the common 4-level paging case? This is more labor intensive case with unclear benefit. Dynamic MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS doesn't cause any issue in waste majority of cases. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org