[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180606174723.bag3o55fvqp6nbvc@techsingularity.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 18:47:23 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
vbabka@...e.cz, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mremap: Increase LATENCY_LIMIT of mremap to reduce the
number of TLB shootdowns
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 08:55:15AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > -#define LATENCY_LIMIT (64 * PAGE_SIZE)
> > +#define LATENCY_LIMIT (PMD_SIZE)
> >
> > unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > unsigned long old_addr, struct vm_area_struct *new_vma,
>
> This LATENCY_LIMIT is only used in move_page_tables() in the following
> manner:
>
> next = (new_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
> if (extent > next - new_addr)
> extent = next - new_addr;
> if (extent > LATENCY_LIMIT)
> extent = LATENCY_LIMIT;
>
> If LATENCY_LIMIT is to be changed to PMD_SIZE, then IIUC the last condition
> is not required, and LATENCY_LIMIT can just be removed (assuming there is no
> underflow case that hides somewhere).
>
I see no problem removing it other than we may forget that we ever limited
PTE lock hold times for any reason. I'm skeptical it will matter unless
mremap-intensive workloads are a lot more common than I believe.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists