[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1379367460-zt1iacf9-mutt-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:37:40 -0400
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
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, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 08:06:30PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Kirill posted split_ptl patchset for thp today, so in this version
> > I post only hugetlbfs part. I added Kconfig variables in following
> > Kirill's patches (although without CONFIG_SPLIT_*_PTLOCK_CPUS.)
> >
> > This patch changes many lines, but all are in hugetlbfs specific code,
> > so I think we can apply this independent of thp patches.
> > -----
> > From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:12:30 -0400
> > Subject: [PATCH v4] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock
> >
> > Currently all of page table handling by hugetlbfs code are done under
> > mm->page_table_lock. So when a process have many threads and they heavily
> > access to the memory, lock contention happens and impacts the performance.
> >
> > This patch makes hugepage support split page table lock so that we use
> > page->ptl of the leaf node of page table tree which is pte for normal pages
> > but can be pmd and/or pud for hugepages of some architectures.
> >
> > ChangeLog v4:
> > - introduce arch dependent macro ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCK
> > (only defined for x86 for now)
> > - rename USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB to USE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCKS
>
> Can we have separate locking for THP and hugetlb ?
I think yes, because thp code and hugetlbfs code are clearly separated
and we can execute only one of them on the same vma.
> Doesn't both require us to
> use same locking when updating pmd ?
I think no for the same reason.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
--
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