[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130902105327.AE4D4E0090@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:53:27 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] thp: support split page table lock
Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Thp related code also uses per process mm->page_table_lock now. So making
> it fine-grained can provide better performance.
>
> This patch makes thp support split page table lock which makes us use
> page->ptl of the pages storing "pmd_trans_huge" pmds.
Hm. So, you use page->ptl only when you deal with thp pages, otherwise
mm->page_table_lock, right?
It looks inconsistent to me. Does it mean we have to take both locks on
split and collapse paths? I'm not sure if it's safe to take only
page->ptl for alloc path. Probably not.
Why not to use new locking for pmd everywhere?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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