[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46149D13.4000108@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:54:11 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: missing madvise functionality
Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Database workload, where the user multi threaded app is constantly
>> accessing GBytes of data, so L2 cache hit is very small. If you want to
>> oprofile it, with say a CPU_CLK_UNHALTED:5000 event, then find_vma() is
>> in the top 5.
>
> We did have a workload with lots of Java and databases at some point
> when many VMAs were the issue. I brought this up here one, maybe two
> years ago and I think Blaisorblade went on and looked into avoiding VMA
> splits by having mprotect() not split VMAs and instead store the flags
> in the page table somewhere. I don't remember the details.
>
> Nothing came out of this but if this is possible it would be yet another
> way to avoid mmap_sem locking, right?
>
I was speaking about oprofile needs, that may interfere with target process
needs, since oprofile calls find_vma() on the target process mm and thus zap
its mmap_cache.
oprofile is yet another mmap_sem user, but also a mmap_cache destroyer.
We could at least have a separate cache, only for oprofile.
If done correctly we might avoid taking mmap_sem when the same vm_area_struct
contains EIP/RIP snapshots.
-
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