From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D08C4360F for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:43:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD31D20657 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:43:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BD31D20657 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44YYQt6tJZzDqGx for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 02:43:50 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44YYP353xgzDq7N for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 02:42:15 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x32FTm1G135078 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 11:42:13 -0400 Received: from e13.ny.us.ibm.com (e13.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.203]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rm9bjvysf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:42:13 -0400 Received: from localhost by e13.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:42:11 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.23) by e13.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.200) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:42:08 +0100 Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.109]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x32Fg7kR25231604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:42:07 GMT Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214F6112064; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:42:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5679F112063; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:42:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.85.72.143] (unknown [9.85.72.143]) by b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:42:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/mm: Reduce memory usage for mm_context_t for radix To: Christophe Leroy , npiggin@gmail.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au References: <20190402143424.7075-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <80f34a0e-2bbe-8751-6571-3f844103fc37@c-s.fr> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 21:12:03 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <80f34a0e-2bbe-8751-6571-3f844103fc37@c-s.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19040215-0064-0000-0000-000003C57376 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010862; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000284; SDB=6.01183308; UDB=6.00619492; IPR=6.00964057; MB=3.00026262; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-04-02 15:42:10 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19040215-0065-0000-0000-00003CEC911A Message-Id: <200e5a1a-9475-8d43-666c-1845f9d95d1b@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-02_06:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904020104 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 4/2/19 9:06 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 02/04/2019 à 16:34, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit : >> Currently, our mm_context_t on book3s64 include all hash specific >> context details like slice mask, subpage protection details. We >> can skip allocating those on radix. This will help us to save >> 8K per mm_context with radix translation. >> >> With the patch applied we have >> >> sizeof(mm_context_t)  = 136 >> sizeof(struct hash_mm_context)  = 8288 >> >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >> --- >> NOTE: >> >> If we want to do this, I am still trying to figure out how best we can >> do this >> without all the #ifdef and other overhead for 8xx book3e > > Did you have a look at my series > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=98170 ? > > It tries to reduce as much as feasible the #ifdefs and stuff. > > Not yet. But a cursory look tell me introducing hash_mm_context complicates this further unless I introduce something similar for nohash 32? Are you ok with that? -aneesh