[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] Shared page tables
Shouldn't those kind of applications already be using threads to share 
page tables rather than forking hundreds of processes that all mmap()
the same file?

Dave McCracken wrote:
> Here's a new version of my shared page tables patch.
> The primary purpose of sharing page tables is improved performance for
> large applications that share big memory areas between multiple processes.
> It eliminates the redundant page tables and significantly reduces the
> number of minor page faults. Tests show significant performance
> improvement for large database applications, including those using large
> pages. There is no measurable performance degradation for small processes.
> This version of the patch uses Hugh's new locking mechanism, extending it
> up the page table tree as far as necessary for proper concurrency control.
> The patch also includes the proper locking for following the vma chains.
> Hugh, I believe I have all the lock points nailed down. I'd appreciate
> your input on any I might have missed.
> The architectures supported are i386 and x86_64. I'm working on 64 bit
> ppc, but there are still some issues around proper segment handling that
> need more testing. This will be available in a separate patch once it's
> solid.
> Dave McCracken

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-13 16:34    [W:0.202 / U:2.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site