[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061020214916.GA27810@linux-mips.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:49:16 +0100
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
anemo@....ocn.ne.jp, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix COW D-cache aliasing on fork
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 01:10:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, this sounds sane.
>
> What should we do about this? How does this patch look to people?
>
> (Totally untested, and I'm not sure we should even do that whole
> "oldmm->mm_users" test, but I'm throwing it out here for discussion, in
> case it matters for performance. The second D$ flush should obviously be
> unnecessary for the common unthreaded case, which is why none of this has
> mattered historically, I think).
>
> Comments? We need ARM, MIPS, sparc and S390 at the very least to sign off
> on this, and somebody to write a nice explanation for the changelog (and
> preferably do this through -mm too).
As a minimal solution your patch would work for MIPS but performance would be
suboptimal.
With my D-cache alias series applied the flush_cache_mm() in dup_mmap()
becomes entirely redundant. When I delete the call (not part of my patchset)
it means 12% faster fork. But I'm not proposing this for 2.6.19.
Note this does not make the flush_cache_mm() on process termination
redundant ...
Ralf
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists