Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:37:04 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clear 1G pages with streaming stores on x86
Message-ID: <20200309183704.GA1573@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20200307010353.172991-1-cannonmatthews@google.com>
 <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box>
 <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20200309153831.GK1454533@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200309153831.GK1454533@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:38:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Gigantic huge pages are a bit different. They are much less dynamic from
> > the usage POV in my experience. Micro-optimizations for the first access
> > tends to not matter at all as it is usually pre-allocation scenario. On
> > the other hand, speeding up the initialization sounds like a good thing
> > in general. It will be a single time benefit but if the additional code
> > is not hard to maintain then I would be inclined to take it even with
> > "artificial" numbers state above. There really shouldn't be other downsides
> > except for the code maintenance, right?
> 
> There's a cautious tale of the old crappy RAID5 XOR assembler functions which
> were optimized a long time ago for the Pentium1, and stayed around,
> even though the compiler could actually do a better job.
> 
> String instructions are constantly improving in performance (Broadwell is
> very old at this point) Most likely over time (and maybe even today
> on newer CPUs) you would need much more sophisticated unrolled MOVNTI variants
> (or maybe even AVX-*) to be competitive.

Presumably you have access to current and maybe even some unreleased
CPUs ... I mean, he's posted the patches, so you can test this hypothesis.