From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Virtual huge zero page Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:37:23 -0700 Message-ID: <5069D4D3.1040003@linux.intel.com> References: <1348875441-19561-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20120929134811.GC26989@redhat.com> <5069B804.6040902@linux.intel.com> <20121001163118.GC18051@redhat.com> <5069CCF9.7040309@linux.intel.com> <20121001172624.GD18051@redhat.com> <5069D3D8.9070805@linux.intel.com> <20121001173604.GC20915@shutemov.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121001173604.GC20915@shutemov.name> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Ingo Molnar , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 10/01/2012 10:36 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:33:12AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Overall, I'm okay with either as long as we don't lock down 2 MB when >> there isn't a huge zero page in use. > > Is shinker-reclaimable huge zero page okay for you? > Yes, I'm fine with that. However, I'm curious about the relative benefit versus virtual hzp from a performance perspective, on an application where hzp actually matters. One can otherwise argue that if hzp doesn't matter for except in a small number of cases that we shouldn't use it at all. -hpa -- 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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:28285 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750753Ab2JARha (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:37:30 -0400 Message-ID: <5069D4D3.1040003@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:37:23 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Virtual huge zero page References: <1348875441-19561-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20120929134811.GC26989@redhat.com> <5069B804.6040902@linux.intel.com> <20121001163118.GC18051@redhat.com> <5069CCF9.7040309@linux.intel.com> <20121001172624.GD18051@redhat.com> <5069D3D8.9070805@linux.intel.com> <20121001173604.GC20915@shutemov.name> In-Reply-To: <20121001173604.GC20915@shutemov.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Ingo Molnar , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20121001173723.LnVbNEUlRuOyChaXU9eR7OynnHrdo9GCyGagLoxJrLU@z> On 10/01/2012 10:36 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:33:12AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Overall, I'm okay with either as long as we don't lock down 2 MB when >> there isn't a huge zero page in use. > > Is shinker-reclaimable huge zero page okay for you? > Yes, I'm fine with that. However, I'm curious about the relative benefit versus virtual hzp from a performance perspective, on an application where hzp actually matters. One can otherwise argue that if hzp doesn't matter for except in a small number of cases that we shouldn't use it at all. -hpa