[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080918162644.1d4beab7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:26:44 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "MinChan Kim" <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Hugh Dickens" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"Linux Memory Management List" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Avi Kivity" <avi@...ranet.com>
Subject: Re: Populating multiple ptes at fault time
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:50:05 +0900
"MinChan Kim" <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I have been thinking about this idea in native.
> I didn't consider it in minor page fault.
> As you know, it costs more cheap than major fault.
> However, the page fault is one of big bottleneck on demand-paging system.
> I think major fault might be a rather big overhead in many core system.
>
> What do you think about this idea in native ?
> Do you really think that this idea don't help much in native ?
>
Hmm, is enlarging page-size-for-anonymous-page more difficult ?
(maybe, yes.)
> If I implement it in native, What kinds of benchmark do I need?
> Could you recommend any benchmark ?
>
Testing some kind of scripts (shell/perl etc..) is candidates.
I use unixbench's exec/shell test to see charge/uncharge overhead of memory
resource controller, which happens at major page fault.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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