[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC: design for new VM

    On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
    > :
    > :There are architecture-specific special cases, of course. On ia64, the
    > :..
    > I spent a weekend a few months ago trying to implement page table
    > sharing in FreeBSD -- and gave up, but it left me with the feeling
    > that it should be possible to do without polluting the general VM
    > architecture.
    > For IA32, what it comes down to is that the page table generated by
    > any segment-aligned mmap() (segment == 4MB) made by two processes
    > should be shareable, simply be sharing the page directory entry (and thus
    > the physical page representing 4MB worth of mappings). This would be
    > restricted to MAP_SHARED mappings with the same protections, but the two
    > processes would not have to map the segments at the same VM address, they
    > need only be segment-aligned.

    I agree that from a page table standpoint you should be correct.

    I don't think that the other issues are as easily resolved, though.
    Especially with address space ID's on other architectures it can get
    _really_ interesting to do TLB invalidates correctly to other CPU's etc
    (you need to keep track of who shares parts of your page tables etc).

    > This would be a transparent optimization wholely invisible to the process,
    > something that would be optionally implemented in the machine-dependant
    > part of the VM code (with general support in the machine-independant
    > part for the concept). If the process did anything to create a mapping
    > mismatch, such as call mprotect(), the shared page table would be split.

    Right. But what about the TLB?

    It's not a problem on the x86, because the x86 doesn't have ASN's anyway.
    But fo rit to be a valid notion, I feel that it should be able to be
    portable too.

    You have to have some page table locking mechanism for SMP eventually: I
    think you miss some of the problems because the current FreeBSD SMP stuff
    is mostly still "big kernel lock" (outdated info?), and you'll end up
    kicking yourself in a big way when you have the 300 processes sharing the
    same lock for that region..

    (Not that I think you'd necessarily have much contention on the lock - the
    problem tends to be more in the logistics of keeping track of the locks of
    partial VM regions etc).

    > (Linux falls on its face for other reasons, mainly the fact that it
    > maps all of physical memory into KVM in order to manage it).

    Not true any more.. Trying to map 64GB of RAM convinced us otherwise ;)

    > I think the loss of MP locking for this situation is outweighed by the
    > benefit of a huge reduction in page faults -- rather then see 300
    > processes each take a page fault on the same page, only the first process
    > would and the pte would already be in place when the others got to it.
    > When it comes right down to it, page faults on shared data sets are not
    > really an issue for MP scaleability.

    I think you'll find that there are all these small details that just
    cannot be solved cleanly. Do you want to be stuck with a x86-only

    That said, I cannot honestly say that I have tried very hard to come up
    with solutions. I just have this feeling that it's a dark ugly hole that I
    wouldn't want to go down..


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.029 / U:39.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site