[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911061409310.15636@V090114053VZO-1>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:13:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [MM] Make mm counters per cpu instead of atomic V2
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> And allocate mm->usage only when the first CLONE_THREAD is specified.
Ok.
> if (mm->usage)
> access per cpu
> else
> atomic_long_xxx
If we just have one thread: Do we need atomic access at all?
> and read operation will be
>
> val = atomic_read(mm->rss);
> if (mm->usage)
> for_each_possible_cpu()....
or
val = m->rss
for_each_cpu(cpu) val+= percpu ...
> ==
> Does "if" seems too costly ?
The above method would avoid the if.
> If this idea is bad, I think moving mm_counter to task_struct from
> mm_struct and doing slow-sync is an idea instead of percpu.
Yeah then the access is effectively percpu as long as preempt is disabled.
But then for the mmap_writer_lock we would need to traverse a doubly
linked list to add up the counters. Bad caching on that one and we would
have to lock the list too. Sigh.
> kswapd and reclaim routine can update mm_struct's counter, directly.
> Readers just read mm_struct's counter.
Would work for rss counters but not for avoiding the rw semaphore I guess.
--
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