From: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
muchun.song@linux.dev, willy@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: Init page count in reserve_bootmem_region when MEMINIT_EARLY
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:10:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a67fc1bf-64e8-ce6c-f68a-52fe8b942860@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231016063357.GU3303@kernel.org>
On 2023/10/16 14:33, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 05:29:19PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>> On 2023/10/13 16:48, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:53:22PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>>> On 2023/10/12 17:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 10.10.23 04:31, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023/10/8 16:57, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>>>>>>> That looks wrong. if the page count would by pure luck be 0
>>>>>>>> already for hotplugged memory, you wouldn't clear the reserved
>>>>>>>> flag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These changes make me a bit nervous.
>>>>>>> Is 'if (page_count(page) || PageReserved(page))' be safer? Or do I
>>>>>>> need to do something else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about the following if statement? But it needs to add more patch
>>>>>> like v1 ([PATCH 2/4] mm: Introduce MEMINIT_LATE context).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It'll be safer, but more complex. Please comment...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (context != MEMINIT_EARLY || (page_count(page) ||
>>>>>> PageReserved(page)) {
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally we could make initialization only depend on the context, and not
>>>>> check for count or the reserved flag.
>>>>>
>>>> This link is v1,
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230922070923.355656-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev/
>>>>
>>>> If we could make initialization only depend on the context, I'll modify it
>>>> based on v1.
>>> Although ~20% improvement looks impressive, this is only optimization of a
>>> fraction of the boot time, and realistically, how much 56 msec saves from
>>> the total boot time when you boot a machine with 190G of RAM?
>> There are a lot of factors that can affect the total boot time. 56 msec
>> saves may be insignificant.
>>
>> But if we look at the boot log, we'll see there's a significant time jump.
>>
>> before:
>>
>> [ 0.250334] ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x508
>> [ 0.618994] Memory: 173413056K/199884452K available (18440K kernel code,
>>
>> after:
>>
>> [ 0.260229] software IO TLB: area num 32.
>> [ 0.563497] Memory: 173413056K/199884452K available (18440K kernel code,
>> Memory:
>> Memory initialization is time consuming in the boot log.
> You just confirmed that 56 msec is insignificant and then you send again
> the improvement of ~60 msec in memory initialization.
>
> What does this improvement gain in percentage of total boot time?
before:
[ 10.692708] Run /init as init process
after:
[ 10.666290] Run /init as init process
About 0.25%. The total boot time is variable, depending on how many
drivers need to be initialized.
>
>>> I still think the improvement does not justify the churn, added complexity
>>> and special casing of different code paths of initialization of struct pages.
>>
>> Because there is a loop, if the order is MAX_ORDER, the loop will run 1024
>> times. The following 'if' would be safer:
>>
>> 'if (context != MEMINIT_EARLY || (page_count(page) || >> PageReserved(page))
>> {'
> No, it will not.
>
> As the matter of fact any condition here won't be 'safer' because it makes
> the code more complex and less maintainable.
> Any future change in __free_pages_core() or one of it's callers will have
> to reason what will happen with that condition after the change.
To avoid introducing MEMINIT_LATE context and make code simpler. This
might be a better option.
if (page_count(page) || PageReserved(page))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-16 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-28 8:33 [PATCH v4 0/2] mm: Don't set and reset page count in MEMINIT_EARLY Yajun Deng
2023-09-28 8:33 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] mm: pass page count and reserved to __init_single_page Yajun Deng
2023-09-29 8:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-29 9:37 ` Yajun Deng
2023-09-28 8:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: Init page count in reserve_bootmem_region when MEMINIT_EARLY Yajun Deng
2023-09-29 8:30 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-29 9:50 ` Yajun Deng
2023-09-29 10:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-09-29 10:27 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-01 18:59 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-02 7:03 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-02 8:47 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-02 8:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-02 11:10 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-02 11:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-03 14:38 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-05 5:06 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-05 14:04 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-12 9:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-12 9:36 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-02 8:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-08 8:57 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-10 2:31 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-12 9:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-12 9:53 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-13 8:48 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-13 9:29 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-16 6:33 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-10-16 8:10 ` Yajun Deng [this message]
2023-10-16 8:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-16 8:32 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-16 8:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-10-16 10:17 ` Yajun Deng
2023-10-17 9:58 ` Yajun Deng
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=a67fc1bf-64e8-ce6c-f68a-52fe8b942860@linux.dev \
--to=yajun.deng@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome