[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1262679496.2400.14.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:18:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 21:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Sounds doable. But it also sounds way more expensive than the current VM
> fault handling, which is pretty close to optimal for single-threaded
> cases.. That RCU lookup might be cheap, but just the refcount is generally
> going to be as expensive as a lock.
Right, that refcount adds two atomic ops, the only grace it has is that
its in the vma as opposed to the mm, but there are plenty workloads that
concentrate on a single vma, in which case you get an equally contended
cacheline as with the mmap_sem.
I was trying to avoid having to have that refcount, but then sorta
forgot about the actual fault handlers also poking at the vma :/
--
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