[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906090924580.6847@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native
kernels
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> The idea seems nice but isn't the problem that kmap gives back a
> basically 1st class kernel virtual memory? (ie. it can then be used
> by any other CPU at any point without it having to use kmap?).
No, everybody has to use kmap()/kunmap().
The "problem" is that you could in theory run out of kmap frames, since if
everybody does a kmap() in an interruptible context and you have lots and
lots of threads doing different pages, you'd run out. But that has nothing
to do with kmap_atomic(), which is basically limited to just the number of
CPU's and a (very small) level of nesting.
Linus
--
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