From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11C46B02F3 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id 5so15703419wrz.14 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 134si20295wmt.177.2017.08.17.15.16.27 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:16:24 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [HMM-v25 00/19] HMM (Heterogeneous Memory Management) v25 Message-Id: <20170817151624.7145db67fd3b868eff26fd05@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20170817000548.32038-1-jglisse@redhat.com> <20170817143916.63fca76e4c1fd841e0afd4cf@linux-foundation.org> <20170817215549.GD2872@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dan Williams Cc: Jerome Glisse , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux MM , John Hubbard , David Nellans , Balbir Singh On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:59:20 -0700 Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 02:39:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:05:29 -0400 J__r__me Glisse wrote: > >> > >> > Heterogeneous Memory Management (HMM) (description and justification) > >> > >> The patchset adds 55 kbytes to x86_64's mm/*.o and there doesn't appear > >> to be any way of avoiding this overhead, or of avoiding whatever > >> runtime overheads are added. > > > > HMM have already been integrated in couple of Red Hat kernel and AFAIK there > > is no runtime performance issue reported. Thought the RHEL version does not > > use static key as Dan asked. > > > >> > >> It also adds 18k to arm's mm/*.o and arm doesn't support HMM at all. > >> > >> So that's all quite a lot of bloat for systems which get no benefit from > >> the patchset. What can we do to improve this situation (a lot)? > > > > I will look into why object file grow so much on arm. My guess is that the > > new migrate code is the bulk of that. I can hide the new page migration code > > behind a kernel configuration flag. > > Shouldn't we completely disable all of it unless there is a driver in > the kernel that selects it? That would be typical (and nice). I'm not sure that Red Hat's decision is a broad enough guide here. Someone who is using Linux to make a cash register or a thermostat faces different tradeoffs... -- 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