[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091216191312.f4655dac.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:13:12 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, minchan.kim@...il.com
Subject: Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:11:07 +0100
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:00:11PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > This is from Christoph Lameter's mm_accessor patch posted 5/Nov.
> >
> > Replacing all access to mm->mmap_sem with mm-accessor functions as
> > mm_read_lock,
> > mm_write_lock,
> > etc...
> >
> > This kind of function allows us to improve page fault performance etc..
> > For example, skil down_read(mmap_sem) in some situation.
> > (as: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=125809791306459&w=2)
>
> The problem is that it also slows down the writers, and we have
> some workloads where writing is the bottleneck.
>
> I don't think this is the right trade off at this time.
>
Maybe you don't see my patch. (above URL) no slow down to write side.
My one doesn't use percpu counter.
> Also the patches didn't fare too well in testing unfortunately.
>
> I suspect we'll rather need multiple locks split per address
> space range.
This set doesn't include any changes of the logic. Just replace all mmap_sem.
I think this is good start point (for introducing another logic etc..)
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