Messages in this thread | | | From | David Mosberger <> | Date | Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:49:53 -0800 | Subject | Re: Inefficient TLB flushing |
| |
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:01:19 -0600, Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com> said:
Jack> Does this analysis look correct??
Yup.
Jack> Here is the patch that I am currently testing:
Jack> --- /usr/tmp/TmpDir.19957-0/linux/mm/memory.c_1.79 Wed Nov 12 13:56:25 2003 Jack> +++ linux/mm/memory.c Wed Nov 12 12:57:25 2003 Jack> @@ -574,9 +574,10 @@ Jack> if ((long)zap_bytes > 0) Jack> continue; Jack> if (need_resched()) { Jack> + int fullmm = (*tlbp)->fullmm; Jack> tlb_finish_mmu(*tlbp, tlb_start, start); Jack> cond_resched_lock(&mm->page_table_lock); Jack> - *tlbp = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, 0); Jack> + *tlbp = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, fullmm); Jack> tlb_start_valid = 0; Jack> } Jack> zap_bytes = ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE;
I think the patch will work fine, but it's not very clean, because it bypasses the TLB-flush API and directly accesses implementation-specific internals. Perhaps it would be better to pass a "fullmm" flag to unmap_vmas(). Andrew?
--david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |