Re: [PATCH v10 3/6] mm: Introduce Reported pages

[David Hildenbrand]

On 23.09.19 17:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 05:47:24PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.09.19 17:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 23.09.19 17:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:28:00AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:00 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 07:50:15AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +static inline void
>>>>>>>>> +page_reporting_reset_boundary(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int mt)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +     int index;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     if (order < PAGE_REPORTING_MIN_ORDER)
>>>>>>>>> +             return;
>>>>>>>>> +     if (!test_bit(ZONE_PAGE_REPORTING_ACTIVE, &zone->flags))
>>>>>>>>> +             return;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     index = get_reporting_index(order, mt);
>>>>>>>>> +     reported_boundary[index] = &zone->free_area[order].free_list[mt];
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So this seems to be costly.
>>>>>>>> I'm guessing it's the access to flags:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         /* zone flags, see below */
>>>>>>>>         unsigned long           flags;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         /* Primarily protects free_area */
>>>>>>>>         spinlock_t              lock;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which is in the same cache line as the lock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by this being costly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just been wondering why does will it scale report a 1.5% regression
>>>>>> with this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you talking about data you have collected from a test you have
>>>>> run, or the data I have run?
>>>>
>>>> About the kernel test robot auto report that was sent recently.
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/21/112
>>>
>>> And if I'm correct, that regression is observable in case reporting is
>>> not enabled. (so with this patch applied only, e.g., on a bare-metal system)
>>>
>>
>> To be even more precise: # CONFIG_PAGE_REPORTING is not set
> 
> Even if it was, I'd hope for 0 overhead when not present runtime.
> 

Right, because it will be included mostly in all kernels that support
virtio-balloon, so it applies to most distributions.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb