From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BD6C282C4 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC422073D for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729882AbfBDUmX (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:42:23 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:41935 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729087AbfBDUmX (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:42:23 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Feb 2019 12:42:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,560,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="115242169" Received: from ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com ([10.7.198.76]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2019 12:42:22 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] kvm: Add guest side support for free memory hints From: Alexander Duyck To: Dave Hansen , Alexander Duyck , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: rkrcmar@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:42:22 -0800 In-Reply-To: <24277842-c920-4a12-57d1-2ebcdf3c1534@intel.com> References: <20190204181118.12095.38300.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20190204181552.12095.46287.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <24277842-c920-4a12-57d1-2ebcdf3c1534@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-2.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 11:44 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 2/4/19 10:15 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST > > +#include > > +extern struct static_key_false pv_free_page_hint_enabled; > > + > > +#define HAVE_ARCH_FREE_PAGE > > +void __arch_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order); > > +static inline void arch_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > > +{ > > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&pv_free_page_hint_enabled)) > > + __arch_free_page(page, order); > > +} > > +#endif > > So, this ends up with at least a call, a branch and a ret added to the > order-0 paths, including freeing pages to the per-cpu-pageset lists. > That seems worrisome. > > What performance testing has been performed to look into the overhead > added to those paths? So far I haven't done much in the way of actual performance testing. Most of my tests have been focused on "is this doing what I think it is supposed to be doing". I have been debating if I want to just move the order checks to include them in the inline functions. In that case we would end up essentially just jumping over the call code.