[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF7B3DF162.973A9AD7-ON48257B51.00299512-48257B51.002C7D65@zte.com.cn>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:05:19 +0800
From: zhang.yi20@....com.cn
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] futex: bugfix for futex-key conflict when futex use
hugepage
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com> wrote on 2013/04/17 23:51:36:
> On 04/17/2013 08:26 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 04/17/2013 07:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>> This also needs a comment in futex.h describing the usage of the
> >>>> offset field in union futex_key as well as above get_futex_key
> >>>> describing the key for shared mappings.
> >>>>
> >>> As far as I know , the max size of one hugepage is 1 GBytes for
> >>> x86 cpu. Can some other cpus support greater hugepage even more
> >>> than 4 GBytes? If so, we can change the type of 'offset' from int
> >>> to long to avoid truncating.
> >>
> >> I discussed this with Dave Hansen, on CC, and he thought we needed
> >> 9 bits, so even on x86 32b we should be covered.
> >
> > I think the problem is actually on 64-bit since you still only have
> > 32-bits in an 'int' there.
> >
> > I guess it's remotely possible that we could have some
> > mega-super-huge-gigantic pages show up in hardware some day, or that
> > somebody would come up with software-only one. I bet there's a lot
> > more code that will break in the kernel than this futex code, though.
> >
> > The other option would be to start #defining some build-time constant
> > for what the largest possible huge page size is, then BUILD_BUG_ON()
> > it.
> >
> > Or you can just make it a long ;)
>
> If we make it a long I'd want to see futextest performance tests before
> and after. Messing with the futex_key has been known to have bad results
> in the past :-)
>
> --
I have run futextest/performance/futex_wait for testing, 5 times before
make it long:
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10215 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 9862 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10081 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10060 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10081 Kiter/s
And 5 times after make it long:
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 9940 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10204 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 9901 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10152 Kiter/s
futex_wait: Measure FUTEX_WAIT operations per second
Arguments: iterations=100000000 threads=256
Result: 10060 Kiter/s
Seems OK, is it?
--
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