Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] huge page clearing optimizations

[Ankur Arora]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:25 PM Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx> 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".

Makes sense to me.

--
ankur