Re: [PATCH v11 0/6] mm / virtio: Provide support for unused page reporting

[Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>]

On 10/1/19 2:41 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> I think Michal asked for a performance comparison against Nitesh's
>>> approach, to evaluate if keeping the reported state + tracking inside
>>> the buddy is really worth it. Do you have any such numbers already? (or
>>> did my tired eyes miss them in this cover letter? :/)
>>>
>> I thought what Michal was asking for was what was the benefit of using the
>> boundary pointer. I added a bit up above and to the description for patch
>> 3 as on a 32G VM it adds up to about a 18% difference without factoring in
>> the page faulting and zeroing logic that occurs when we actually do the
>> madvise.
> "I would still be happier if the allocator wouldn't really have to
> bother about somebody snooping its internal state to do its own thing.
> So make sure to describe why and how much this really matters.
> [...]
> if you gave some rough numbers to quantify how much overhead for
> different solutions we are talking about here.
> "
>
> Could be that I'm misreading Michals comment, but I'd be interested in
> the "how much" as well.
>
>> Do we have a working patch set for Nitesh's code? The last time I tried
>> running his patch set I ran into issues with kernel panics. If we have a
>> known working/stable patch set I can give it a try.
> @Nitesh, is there a working branch?

For some unknown reason, I received these set of emails just now :)
That's why couldn't respond earlier.

>
>
-- 
Thanks
Nitesh