lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 19 Apr 2011 13:06:06 -0700
FromAndrew Morton <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/20] mm: mmu_gather rework
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:12:59 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> Remove the first obstackle towards a fully preemptible mmu_gather.
>
> The current scheme assumes mmu_gather is always done with preemption
> disabled and uses per-cpu storage for the page batches. Change this to
> try and allocate a page for batching and in case of failure, use a
> small on-stack array to make some progress.
>
> Preemptible mmu_gather is desired in general and usable once
> i_mmap_lock becomes a mutex. Doing it before the mutex conversion
> saves us from having to rework the code by moving the mmu_gather
> bits inside the pte_lock.
>
> Also avoid flushing the tlb batches from under the pte lock,
> this is useful even without the i_mmap_lock conversion as it
> significantly reduces pte lock hold times.

There doesn't seem much point in reviewing this closely, as a lot of it
gets tossed away later in the series..

> free_pages_and_swap_cache(tlb->pages, tlb->nr);

It seems inappropriate that this code uses
free_page[s]_and_swap_cache(). It should go direct to put_page() and
release_pages()? Please review this code's implicit decision to pass
"cold==0" into release_pages().

> -static inline void tlb_remove_page(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct page *page)
> +static inline int __tlb_remove_page(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct page *page)

I wonder if all the inlining which remains in this code is needed and
desirable.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-19 22:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2010