[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cef01110-dc23-4442-f277-88d1d3662e00@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:24:20 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <corbet@....net>, <keescook@...omium.org>,
<mhocko@...nel.org>, <labbott@...hat.com>, <jglisse@...hat.com>,
<hch@...radead.org>, <cl@...ux.com>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] struct page: add field for vm_struct
On 11/02/18 23:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 05:19:17AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> The struct page has a "mapping" field, which can be re-used, to store a
>> pointer to the parent area. This will avoid more expensive searches.
>>
>> As example, the function find_vm_area is reimplemented, to take advantage
>> of the newly introduced field.
>
> Umm. Is it more efficient? You're replacing an rb-tree search with a
> page-table walk. You eliminate a spinlock, which is great, but is the
> page-table walk more efficient? I suppose it'll depend on the depth of
> the rb-tree, and (at least on x86), the page tables should already be
> in cache.
I thought the tradeoff favorable. How to verify it?
> Unrelated to this patch, I'm working on a patch to give us page_type,
> and I think I'll allocate a bit to mark pages which are vmalloced.
pmalloced too?
--
igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists