Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:59:28 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call |
| |
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:43:59AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 07:24:24PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> So whole stole the remaining 1.85 seconds? Looks like pte_highmem. > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:17:27PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > would you mind to add the line for 2.4.21-pre4aa3? it has pte-highmem so > > you can easily find it out for sure if it is pte_highmem that stole >10% > > of your fast cpu. A line for the 2.4-rmap patch would be also > > interesting. > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 07:24:24PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Note one second spent in pte_alloc_one(). > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:17:27PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > note the seconds spent in the rmap affected paths too. > > The pagetable cache is gone in 2.5, so pte_alloc_one() takes the > bitblitting hit for pagetables.
I'm talking about do_anonymous_page, do_wp_page, do_no_page fork and all the other places that introduces spinlocks (per-page) and allocations of 2 pieces of ram rather than just 1 (and in turn potentially global spinlocks too if the cpu-caches are empty). Just grep for pte_chain_alloc or page_add_rmap in mm/memory.c, that's what I mean, I'm not talking about pagetables.
Andrea - 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/
| |