[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080703.105753.68564699.saito@densan.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:57:53 +0900 (JST)
From: Hideo Saito <saito@...san.co.jp>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: lethal@...ux-sh.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, saito@...san.co.jp
Subject: Re: follow_page() performance regressions
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I suspect it could be any of:
>
> - actual code generation differences in follow_page() (some SH person
> needs to check that)
>
> - some cache issue on SH. ZERO_PAGE is a single page at a fixed virtual
> address, while it used to populate the page tables with individual
> pages. Normally, this should be *better* for caching, but maybe there
> is some conflict? What kind of caches does SH have (virtually indexed?)
>
> - hackbench relying on follow_page() to populate the page tables, which
> it no longer does for anonymous areas (using ZERO_PAGE directly
> instead).
>
> Again, normally this would speed things up (fewer TLB misses etc), but
> if it then causes a new page fault that used to have been covered by
> follow_page(), who knows?
>
> What does hackbench actually do? Anybody?
I am reporter of this problem.
Sorry, my testing was not enough. This problem depends our platform or maybe SH architecture.
When I changed that the code of |goto no_page| and |goto bad_page| to both |goto unlock| at follow_page(), I did not notice that the code of |bad_page:| and |no_page:| was lost by optimizer. In the result, only the size of the text code of kernel became small 0x40 bytes. I think that the cause of this problem is in any of our platform or in the replacement of SH cache.
--
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