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)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
