[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FA002F4.8000508@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 18:36:20 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
jeremy@...p.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/5] KVM: Add paravirt kvm_flush_tlb_others
On 05/01/2012 06:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 15:12 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > What's changed is not gup_fast() but the performance of munmap(),
> > exit(), and exec(), no?
>
> If it is indeed cache related like you suggested earlier, it would be
> the allocation side of things, like fork()/mmap() that suffer since
> there's fewer hot pages about, but yes, anything creating/destroying
> page-tables.
Right.
>
> > What bounds the amount of memory waiting to be freed during an rcu grace
> > period?
>
> Most RCU implementations don't have limits, so that could be quite a
> lot. I think preemptible RCU has a batch limit at which point it tries
> rather hard to force a grace period, but I'm not sure if even that
> provides a hard limit.
>
> Practically though, I haven't had reports of PPC/Sparc going funny
> because of this.
It could be considered a DoS if a user is able to free page tables
faster than rcu is able to recycle them, possibly triggering the oom
killer (should that force a grace period before firing from the hip?)
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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