Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:03:39 -0600 | From | Jack Steiner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v6 |
| |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:39:42AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Given Nick's comments I ported my version of the mmu notifiers to > latest mainline. There are no known bugs AFIK and it's obviously safe > (nothing is allowed to schedule inside rcu_read_lock taken by > mmu_notifier() with my patch). > ....
I ported the GRU driver to use the latest #v6 patch and ran a series of tests on it using our system simulator. The simulator is slow so true stress or swapping is not possible - at least within a finite amount of time.
Functionally, the #v6 patch seems to work for the GRU. However, I did notice two significant differences that make the #v6 performance worse for the GRU than Christoph's patch. I think one difference is easily fixable but the other is more difficult:
- the location of the mmu_notifier_release() callout is at a different place in the 2 patches. Christoph has the callout BEFORE the call to unmap_vmas() whereas you have it AFTER. The net result is that the GRU does a LOT of 1-page TLB flushes during process teardown. These flushes are not done with Christops's patch.
- the range callouts in Christoph's patch benefit the GRU because multiple TLB entries can be flushed with a single GRU instruction (the GRU hardware supports a range flush using a vaddr & length). The #v6 patch does a TLB flush for each page in the range. Flushing on the GRU is slow so being able to flush multiple pages with a single request is a benefit.
Seems like the latter difference could be significant for other users of mmu notifiers.
--- jack
| |