[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191223215914.GA5156@richard>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 05:59:14 +0800
From: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap.c: split huge pmd when it really is
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 08:16:53PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 10:24:35AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> There are two cases to call try_to_unmap_one() with TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD
>> set:
>>
>> * unmap_page()
>> * shrink_page_list()
>>
>> In both case, the page passed to try_to_unmap_one() is PageHead() of the
>> THP. If this page's mapping address in process is not HPAGE_PMD_SIZE
>> aligned, this means the THP is not mapped as PMD THP in this process.
>> This could happen when we do mremap() a PMD size range to an un-aligned
>> address.
>>
>> Currently, this case is handled by following check in __split_huge_pmd()
>> luckily.
>>
>> page != pmd_page(*pmd)
>>
>> This patch checks the address to skip some hard work.
>
>Do you see some measurable performance improvement? rmap is heavy enough
>and I expect this kind of overhead to be within noise level.
>
>I don't have anything agains the check, but it complicates the picture.
>
>And if we are going this path, it worth also check if the vma is long
>enough to hold huge page.
>
>And I don't see why the check cannot be done inside split_huge_pmd_address().
>
Ok, let me put the check into split_huge_pmd_address().
>--
> Kirill A. Shutemov
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists