Hello:
This series was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
by Andrew Morton :
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:46:34 +0100 you wrote:
> Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface
> for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching during fork when processing
> PTE-mapped THPs.
>
dontneed should hopefully/likely see a speedup.
Yes, but that's almost exactly the same path as munmap, so I'm sure it really
adds much for this particular series.
Right, that's why I'm not including these measurements. dontneed vs.
munmap is more about measuring the overhead of VMA modifica
On 31/01/2024 15:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.01.24 16:02, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 31/01/2024 14:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Note that regarding NUMA effects, I mean when some memory access within
> the
> same
> socket is faster/slower even with only a single node. On
On 31.01.24 16:02, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 31/01/2024 14:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Note that regarding NUMA effects, I mean when some memory access within the same
socket is faster/slower even with only a single node. On AMD EPYC that's
possible, depending on which core you are running and on
On 31/01/2024 14:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Note that regarding NUMA effects, I mean when some memory access within the
>>> same
>>> socket is faster/slower even with only a single node. On AMD EPYC that's
>>> possible, depending on which core you are running and on which memory
>>> control
Note that regarding NUMA effects, I mean when some memory access within the same
socket is faster/slower even with only a single node. On AMD EPYC that's
possible, depending on which core you are running and on which memory controller
the memory you want to access is located. If both are in differ
On 31/01/2024 13:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Nope: looks the same. I've taken my test harness out of the picture and
done
everything manually from the ground up, with the old tests and the new.
Headline
is that I see similar numbers from both.
>>>
>>> I took me a while to
Nope: looks the same. I've taken my test harness out of the picture and done
everything manually from the ground up, with the old tests and the new. Headline
is that I see similar numbers from both.
I took me a while to get really reproducible numbers on Intel. Most importantly:
* Set a fixed CP
On 31/01/2024 12:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.01.24 13:37, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 31/01/2024 11:49, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2024 11:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.01.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 31.01.24 11:
I'm also surprised about the dontneed vs. munmap numbers.
You mean the ones for Altra that I posted? (I didn't post any for M2). The altra
numbers look ok to me; dontneed has no change, and munmap has no change for
order-0 and is massively improved for order-9.
I would expect that dontneed w
On 31.01.24 13:37, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 31/01/2024 11:49, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 31/01/2024 11:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.01.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wro
On 31/01/2024 11:49, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 31/01/2024 11:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 31.01.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Now that the rm
On 31/01/2024 11:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.01.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean
On 31.01.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface
for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching du
On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface
>>> for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching during fork when processing
>>> P
On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface
for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching during fork when processing
PTE-mapped THPs.
This series is partially based on Ryan's pr
On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface
> for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching during fork when processing
> PTE-mapped THPs.
>
> This series is partially based on Ryan's previous work[2] to implement
> co
Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface
for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching during fork when processing
PTE-mapped THPs.
This series is partially based on Ryan's previous work[2] to implement
cont-pte support on arm64, but its a complete rewrite based
18 matches
Mail list logo
