[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/6] mm: Don't unmap gup()ed page
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 00:12:09 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:39:54PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > I guess you dislike get_user_page_fast() grab pte_lock too, right?
> If get_user_page_fast is vetoed to run a set_bit on the already cache
> hot and exclusive struct page, I doubt taking a potentially cache
> cold, mm-wide or pmd-wide pte_lock is ok.

Yes, I'd *really* rather not. I actually implemented gup_fast in
response to problem reported with DB2 workload hitting the ptl
(and not the more obvious mmap_sem, although certainly they had
some gain from removing that cacheline as well).

gup_fast iirc is worth nearly 10% on a 4 socket x86 system with
DB2. That's the same order of magnitude as the speedups quoted
to justify the addition of hugepages, or O_DIRECT itself.

Andrea: I didn't veto that set_bit change of yours as such. I just
noted there could be more atomic operations. Actually I would
welcome more comparison between our two approaches, but they seem
to be stuck with Linus refusing (I think) to copy the page at
fork() time :(

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-14 16:31    [W:0.055 / U:1.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site