On 10/22/19 7:43 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 16:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:27:52 -0700 Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [...] >>> There is currently an alternative patch set[1] that has been under work >>> for some time however the v12 version of that patch set could not be >>> tested as it triggered a kernel panic when I attempted to test it. It >>> requires multiple modifications to get up and running with performance >>> comparable to this patch set. A follow-on set has yet to be posted. As >>> such I have not included results from that patch set, and I would >>> appreciate it if we could keep this patch set the focus of any discussion >>> on this thread. >> Actually, the rest of us would be interested in a comparison ;) > I understand that. However, the last time I tried benchmarking that patch > set it blew up into a thread where we kept having to fix things on that > patch set and by the time we were done we weren't benchmarking the v12 > patch set anymore since we had made so many modifications to it, and that > assumes Nitesh and I were in sync. Also I don't know what the current > state of his patch set is as he was working on some additional changes > when we last discussed things. Just an update about the current state of my patch-series: As we last discussed I was going to try implementing Michal Hock's suggestion of using page-isolation APIs. To do that I have replaced __isolate_free_page() with start/undo_isolate_free_page_range(). However, I am running into some issues which I am currently investigating. After this, I will be investigating the reason why I was seeing degradation specifically with (MAX_ORDER - 2) as the reporting order. > > Ideally that patch set can be reposted with the necessary fixes and then > we can go through any necessary debug, repair, and addressing limitations > there. > >
