[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:41:31 +0000 (GMT), Hugh Dickins <> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Mauricio Lin wrote:
> >
> > Now I am testing with /proc/pid/smaps and the values are showing that
> > the old one is faster than the new one. So I will keep using the old
> > smaps version.
> Sorry, I don't have time for more than the briefest look.
> It appears that your old resident_mem_size method is just checking
> pte_present, whereas your new smaps_pte_range method is also doing
> pte_page (yet no prior check for pfn_valid: wrong) and checking
> !PageReserved i.e. accessing the struct page corresponding to each
> pte. So it's not a fair comparison, your new method is accessing
> many more cachelines than your old method.
> Though it's correct to check pfn_valid and !PageReserved to get the
> same total rss as would be reported elsewhere, I'd suggest that it's
> really not worth the overhead of those struct page accesses: just
> stick with the pte_present test.
So, I can remove the PageReserved macro without no problems, right?

> Your smaps_pte_range is missing pte_unmap?
Yes, but I already fixed this problem. Paul Mundt has checked the
unmap missing.


Let me perform new experiments now.


Mauricio Lin.
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: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.069 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site