[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5458F819.2010503@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:00:25 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Ren Qiaowei <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
x86@...nel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/12] x86, mpx: cleanup unused bound tables
On 11/03/2014 01:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> That's not really true. You can evaluate that information with
> mmap_sem held for read as well. Nothing can change the mappings until
> you drop it. So you could do:
>
> down_write(mm->bd_sem);
> down_read(mm->mmap_sem;
> evaluate_size_of_shm_to_unmap();
> clear_bounds_directory_entries();
> up_read(mm->mmap_sem);
> do_the_real_shm_unmap();
> up_write(mm->bd_sem);
>
> That should still be covered by the above scheme.
Yep, that'll work. It just means rewriting the shmdt()/mremap() code to
do a "dry run" of sorts.
Do you have any concerns about adding another mutex to these paths?
munmap() isn't as hot of a path as the allocation side, but it does
worry me a bit that we're going to perturb some workloads. We might
need to find a way to optimize out the bd_sem activity on processes that
never used MPX.
--
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