Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220606202109.1306034-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <CAHk-=wh89D_69JZtB0MNKbrTM4dPJisK6E0yFKH-hA++F13mzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87k09s1pgo.fsf@oracle.com> <CAHk-=wj9En-BC4t7J9xFZOws5ShwaR9yor7FxHZr8CTVyEP_+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <877d5rt0uz.fsf@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <877d5rt0uz.fsf@oracle.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 12:39:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgGjmCwyrs4Druy26rUddoWj29PjAKRZD=q0pzfVNioDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] huge page clearing optimizations
To:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, jon.grimm@amd.com,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:25 PM Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> But, even on x86, AFAICT gigantic pages could straddle MAX_SECTION_BITS?
> An arch specific clear_huge_page() code could, however handle 1GB pages
> via some kind of static loop around (30 - MAX_SECTION_BITS).

Even if gigantic pages straddle that area, it simply shouldn't matter.

The only reason that MAX_SECTION_BITS matters is for the 'struct page *' lookup.

And the only reason for *that* is because of HIGHMEM.

So it's all entirely silly and pointless on any sane architecture, I think.

> We'll need a preemption point there for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
> as well, right?

Ahh, yes.  I should have looked at the code, and not just gone by my
"PREEMPT_NONE vs PREEMPT" thing that entirely forgot about how we
split that up.

> Just one minor point -- seems to me that the choice of nontemporal or
> temporal might have to be based on a hint to clear_huge_page().

Quite possibly. But I'd prefer that  as a separate "look, this
improves numbers by X%" thing from the whole "let's make the
clear_huge_page() interface at least sane".

                 Linus