[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:0.021 / U:6.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site