[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] hugetlb: pagetable_operations API (V2)
    On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:05:02PM -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
    > Andrew, given the favorable review of these patches the last time
    > around, would you consider them for the -mm tree? Does anyone else
    > have any objections?

    We need a new round of commentary for how it should integrate with
    Nick Piggin's fault handling patches given that both introduce very
    similar ->fault() methods, albeit at different places and for different

    I think things weren't entirely wrapped up last time but there was
    general approval in concept and code-level issues had been gotten past.
    I've forgotten the conclusion of hch and arjan's commentary on making
    the pagetable operations mandatory. ISTR they were all cosmetic affairs
    like that or whether they should be part of ->vm_ops as opposed to
    fundamental issues.

    The last thing I'd want to do is hold things back, so by no means
    delay merging etc. on account of this, but I am curious on several
    points. First, is there any demonstrable overhead to mandatory indirect
    calls for the pagetable operations? Second, can case analysis for e.g.
    file-backed vs. anon and/or COW vs. shared be avoided by the use of
    the indirect function call, or more specifically, to any beneficial
    effect? Well, I rearranged the code in such a manner ca. 2.6.6 so I
    know the rearrangement is possible, but not the performance impact vs.
    modern kernels, if any, never mind how the code ends up looking in
    modern kernels. Third, could you use lmbench or some such to get direct
    fork() and fault handling microbenchmarks? Kernel compiles are too
    close to macrobenchmarks to say anything concrete there apart from that
    other issues (e.g. SMP load balancing, NUMA, lock contention, etc.)
    dominate indirect calls. If you have the time or interest to explore
    any of these areas, I'd be very interested in hearing the results.

    One thing I would like to see for sure is dropping the has_pt_op()
    and pt_op() macros. The Linux-native convention is to open-code the
    function pointer fetches, and the non-native convention is to wrap
    things like defaulting (though they actually do something more involved)
    in the analogue of pt_op() for the purposes of things like extensible
    sets of operations bordering on OOP-ish method tables. So this ends up
    as some sort of hybrid convention without the functionality of the
    non-native call wrappers and without the clarity of open-coding. My
    personal preference is that the function pointer table be mandatory and
    the call to the the function pointer be unconditional and the type
    dispatch accomplished entirely through the function pointers, but I'm
    not particularly insistent about that.

    -- wli
    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: 2007-03-21 02:21    [W:0.020 / U:2.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site