On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:33:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:00:52 +0200 > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Andrew, here's updated huge zero page patchset. > > There is still a distinct lack of reviewed-by's and acked-by's on this > patchset. > > On 13 Sep, Andrea did indicate that he "reviewed the whole patchset and > it looks fine to me". But that information failed to make it into the > changelogs, which is bad. As I said before, I had to drop Andrea's reviewed-by on rebase to v3.7-rc1. I had to solve few not-that-trivial conflicts and I was not sure if the reviewed-by is still applicable. > I grabbed the patchset. I might hold it over until 3.9 depending on > additional review/test feedback and upon whether Andrea can be > persuaded to take another look at it all. > > I'm still a bit concerned over the possibility that some workloads will > cause a high-frequency free/alloc/memset cycle on that huge zero page. > We'll see how it goes... > > For this reason and for general ease-of-testing: can and should we add > a knob which will enable users to disable the feature at runtime? That > way if it causes problems or if we suspect it's causing problems, we > can easily verify the theory and offer users a temporary fix. > > Such a knob could be a boot-time option, but a post-boot /proc thing > would be much nicer. Okay, I'll add sysfs knob. BTW, we already have build time knob: just revert last two patches in the series. It will bring lazy allocation instead of refcounting. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature