Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-07-08 Thread Daniel Jordan
(I'm back now) On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:47:06PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-06-20 15:17:39, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > Hello Michal, > > > > (I've been away and may be slow to respond for a little while) > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I bel

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-26 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 22-06-20 15:17:39, Daniel Jordan wrote: > Hello Michal, > > (I've been away and may be slow to respond for a little while) > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 09-06-20 18:54:51, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > [...] > > > @@ -1390,6 +1391,15 @@ static unsi

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-22 Thread Daniel Jordan
Hello Michal, (I've been away and may be slow to respond for a little while) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 09-06-20 18:54:51, Daniel Jordan wrote: > [...] > > @@ -1390,6 +1391,15 @@ static unsigned long probe_memory_block_size(void) > > goto do

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-19 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 09-06-20 18:54:51, Daniel Jordan wrote: [...] > @@ -1390,6 +1391,15 @@ static unsigned long probe_memory_block_size(void) > goto done; > } > > + /* > + * Use max block size to minimize overhead on bare metal, where > + * alignment for memory hotplug isn't

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-11 Thread Daniel Jordan
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > One other nit for this. We *do* have actual hardware hotplug, and I'm > pretty sure the alignment guarantees for hardware hotplug are pretty > weak. For instance, the alignment guarantees for persistent memory are > still only 64MB ev

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-11 Thread Dave Hansen
On 6/11/20 9:59 AM, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:16:02AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 6/9/20 3:54 PM, Daniel Jordan wrote: >>> + /* >>> +* Use max block size to minimize overhead on bare metal, where >>> +* alignment for memory hotplug isn't a concern. >>> +*/

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-11 Thread Daniel Jordan
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:16:02AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 6/9/20 3:54 PM, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > + /* > > +* Use max block size to minimize overhead on bare metal, where > > +* alignment for memory hotplug isn't a concern. > > +*/ > > + if (hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NAT

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-11 Thread Dave Hansen
On 6/9/20 3:54 PM, Daniel Jordan wrote: > + /* > + * Use max block size to minimize overhead on bare metal, where > + * alignment for memory hotplug isn't a concern. > + */ > + if (hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE)) { > + bz = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE; > + go

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-10 Thread Daniel Jordan
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:30:00AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 10.06.20 09:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 10.06.20 00:54, Daniel Jordan wrote: > >> @@ -1390,6 +1391,15 @@ static unsigned long probe_memory_block_size(void) > >>goto done; > >>} > >> > >> + /* > >> +

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-10 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 10.06.20 09:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 10.06.20 00:54, Daniel Jordan wrote: >> Some of our servers spend significant time at kernel boot initializing >> memory block sysfs directories and then creating symlinks between them >> and the corresponding nodes. The slowness happens because the

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-10 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 10.06.20 00:54, Daniel Jordan wrote: > Some of our servers spend significant time at kernel boot initializing > memory block sysfs directories and then creating symlinks between them > and the corresponding nodes. The slowness happens because the machines > get stuck with the smallest supported

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-09 Thread Daniel Jordan
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 06:54:51PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote: > Some of our servers spend significant time at kernel boot initializing > memory block sysfs directories and then creating symlinks between them > and the corresponding nodes. The slowness happens because the machines > get stuck with

[PATCH v2] x86/mm: use max memory block size on bare metal

2020-06-09 Thread Daniel Jordan
Some of our servers spend significant time at kernel boot initializing memory block sysfs directories and then creating symlinks between them and the corresponding nodes. The slowness happens because the machines get stuck with the smallest supported memory block size on x86 (128M), which results