Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201221163024.GA22532@open-light-1.localdomain>
 <0e8b6a2f-527d-7c77-efcf-04f21ef2a77c@intel.com> <20210104192753.GD22407@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210104192753.GD22407@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:44:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4ig_REkFOWJwFwuRnz-YinsBNYkH35TNo+=qY+3X_7FJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 4/4] mm: pre zero out free pages to speed up page
 allocation for __GFP_ZERO
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Liang Li <liliangleo@didiglobal.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:28 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:19:13AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 12/21/20 8:30 AM, Liang Li wrote:
> > > --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> > > @@ -137,6 +137,9 @@ enum pageflags {
> > >  #endif
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> > >     PG_arch_2,
> > > +#endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREZERO_PAGE
> > > +   PG_zero,
> > >  #endif
> > >     __NR_PAGEFLAGS,
> >
> > I don't think this is worth a generic page->flags bit.
> >
> > There's a ton of space in 'struct page' for pages that are in the
> > allocator.  Can't we use some of that space?
>
> I was going to object to that too, but I think the entire approach is
> flawed and needs to be thrown out.  It just nukes the caches in extremely
> subtle and hard to measure ways, lowering overall system performance.

At a minimum the performance analysis should at least try to quantify
that externalized cost. Certainly that overhead went somewhere. Maybe
if this overhead was limited to run when the CPU would otherwise go
idle, but that might mean it never runs in practice...