On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:03:53AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Something isn't quite right about that. If you look at your numbers: > > 1,049,134,961 LLC-loads > 6,222 LLC-load-misses > > This is another way of saying in your benchmark the huge zero page is > parked in your LLC - using up 2 MB of your LLC, typically a significant > portion of said cache. In a real-life application that will squeeze out > real data, but in your benchmark the system is artificially quiescent. Agreed. And that argument applies to the cache benefits of the virtual zero page too: squeeze the cache just more aggressively so those 4k got out of the cache too, and that 6% improvement will disappear (while the TLB benefit of the physical zero page is guaranteed and is always present no matter the workload, even if the TLB miss at the same frequency, it'll get filled with one less cacheline access every time). > It is well known that microbenchmarks can be horribly misleading. What > led to Kirill investigating huge zero page in the first place was the > fact that some applications/macrobenchmarks benefit, and I think those > are the right thing to look at. The whole point of the two microbenchmarks was to measure the worst cases for both scenarios and I think that was useful. Real life using zero pages are going to be somewhere in that range. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>