From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: mike.yoknis@hp.com
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
mingo@redhat.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mmarek@suse.cz,
tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de,
sam@ravnborg.org, minchan@kernel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, mhocko@suse.cz,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memmap_init_zone() performance improvement
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:31:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121030153157.70279408.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351291667.6504.13.camel@MikesLinux.fc.hp.com>
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:47:47 -0600
Mike Yoknis <mike.yoknis@hp.com> wrote:
> memmap_init_zone() loops through every Page Frame Number (pfn),
> including pfn values that are within the gaps between existing
> memory sections. The unneeded looping will become a boot
> performance issue when machines configure larger memory ranges
> that will contain larger and more numerous gaps.
>
> The code will skip across invalid pfn values to reduce the
> number of loops executed.
>
So I was wondering how much difference this makes. Then I see Mel
already asked and was answered. The lesson: please treat a reviewer
question as a sign that the changelog needs more information! I added
this text to the changelog:
: We have what we call an "architectural simulator". It is a computer
: program that pretends that it is a computer system. We use it to test the
: firmware before real hardware is available. We have booted Linux on our
: simulator. As you would expect it takes longer to boot on the simulator
: than it does on real hardware.
:
: With my patch - boot time 41 minutes
: Without patch - boot time 94 minutes
:
: These numbers do not scale linearly to real hardware. But indicate to me
: a place where Linux can be improved.
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3857,8 +3857,11 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long
> size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
> * exist on hotplugged memory.
> */
> if (context == MEMMAP_EARLY) {
> - if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn))
> + if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> + pfn = ALIGN(pfn + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES,
> + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
> continue;
> + }
> if (!early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid))
> continue;
> }
So what is the assumption here? That each zone's first page has a pfn
which is a multiple of MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES?
That seems reasonable, but is it actually true, for all architectures
and for all time? Where did this come from?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: mike.yoknis@hp.com
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
mingo@redhat.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mmarek@suse.cz,
tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de,
sam@ravnborg.org, minchan@kernel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, mhocko@suse.cz,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memmap_init_zone() performance improvement
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:31:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121030153157.70279408.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20121030223157.REOADeo01uewYyUUN36pOfCYkcfEWcwH2RpTnqbeLjU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351291667.6504.13.camel@MikesLinux.fc.hp.com>
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:47:47 -0600
Mike Yoknis <mike.yoknis@hp.com> wrote:
> memmap_init_zone() loops through every Page Frame Number (pfn),
> including pfn values that are within the gaps between existing
> memory sections. The unneeded looping will become a boot
> performance issue when machines configure larger memory ranges
> that will contain larger and more numerous gaps.
>
> The code will skip across invalid pfn values to reduce the
> number of loops executed.
>
So I was wondering how much difference this makes. Then I see Mel
already asked and was answered. The lesson: please treat a reviewer
question as a sign that the changelog needs more information! I added
this text to the changelog:
: We have what we call an "architectural simulator". It is a computer
: program that pretends that it is a computer system. We use it to test the
: firmware before real hardware is available. We have booted Linux on our
: simulator. As you would expect it takes longer to boot on the simulator
: than it does on real hardware.
:
: With my patch - boot time 41 minutes
: Without patch - boot time 94 minutes
:
: These numbers do not scale linearly to real hardware. But indicate to me
: a place where Linux can be improved.
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3857,8 +3857,11 @@ void __meminit memmap_init_zone(unsigned long
> size, int nid, unsigned long zone,
> * exist on hotplugged memory.
> */
> if (context == MEMMAP_EARLY) {
> - if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn))
> + if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> + pfn = ALIGN(pfn + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES,
> + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
> continue;
> + }
> if (!early_pfn_in_nid(pfn, nid))
> continue;
> }
So what is the assumption here? That each zone's first page has a pfn
which is a multiple of MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES?
That seems reasonable, but is it actually true, for all architectures
and for all time? Where did this come from?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-30 22:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-03 14:56 [PATCH] mm: memmap_init_zone() performance improvement Mike Yoknis
2012-10-06 23:59 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-10-06 23:59 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-10-08 15:16 ` Mel Gorman
2012-10-08 15:16 ` Mel Gorman
2012-10-09 0:42 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-10-09 0:42 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-10-09 14:56 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-09 14:56 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-19 19:53 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-19 19:53 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-20 8:29 ` Mel Gorman
2012-10-20 8:29 ` Mel Gorman
2012-10-24 15:47 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-24 15:47 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-25 9:44 ` Mel Gorman
2012-10-25 9:44 ` Mel Gorman
2012-10-26 22:47 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Yoknis
2012-10-26 22:47 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-10-30 22:31 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2012-10-30 22:31 ` Andrew Morton
2012-10-30 15:14 ` [PATCH] " Dave Hansen
2012-10-30 15:14 ` Dave Hansen
2012-11-06 16:03 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-11-06 16:03 ` Mike Yoknis
2012-12-18 23:03 ` Andrew Morton
2012-12-18 23:03 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121030153157.70279408.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=mike.yoknis@hp.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.