[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180515004406.GB5168@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:44:06 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Boaz Harrosh <boazh@...app.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Amit Golander <Amit.Golander@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add new vma flag VM_LOCAL_CPU
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 02:49:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2018 20:28:01 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <boazh@...app.com> wrote:
> > In this project we utilize a per-core server thread so everything
> > is kept local. If we use the regular zap_ptes() API All CPU's
> > are scheduled for the unmap, though in our case we know that we
> > have only used a single core. The regular zap_ptes adds a very big
> > latency on every operation and mostly kills the concurrency of the
> > over all system. Because it imposes a serialization between all cores
>
> I'd have thought that in this situation, only the local CPU's bit is
> set in the vma's mm_cpumask() and the remote invalidations are not
> performed. Is that a misunderstanding, or is all that stuff not working
> correctly?
I think you misunderstand Boaz's architecture. He has one thread per CPU,
so every bit will be set in the mm's (not vma's) mm_cpumask.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists