[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200511170212.GI2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 19:02:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:52:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:31:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 06:11:57PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > Iterating an XArray (whether the entire thing
> > > or with marks) is RCU-safe and faster than iterating a linked list,
> > > so this should solve the problem?
> >
> > It can hardly be faster if you want all elements -- which is I think the
> > case here. We only call into this if we change an entry, and then we
> > need to propagate that change to all.
>
> Of course it can be faster. Iterating an array is faster than iterating
> a linked list because caches. While an XArray is a segmented array
> (so slower than a plain array), it's plainly going to be faster than
> iterating a linked list.
Fair enough, mostly also because the actual work (setting a single PTE)
doesn't dominate in this case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists