[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200512150250.GC8135@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 17:02:50 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <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>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:36:19PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I’m guessing the right solution is either your series or your series
> plus preallocation on 64-bit. I’m just grumpy about it...
Okay, so we can do the pre-allocation when it turns out the pgd_list
lock-times become a problem on x86-64. The tracking code in vmalloc.c is
needed anyway for 32-bit and there is no reason why 64-bit shouldn't use
it as well for now.
I don't think that taking the lock _will_ be a problem, as it is only
taken when a new PGD/P4D entry is populated. And it is pretty unlikely
that a system will populate all 64 of them, with 4-level paging each of
these entries will map 512GB of address space. But if I am wrong here
pre-allocating is still an option.
Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists