[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:26:47AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > The idea seems nice but isn't the problem that kmap gives back a
> > > basically 1st class kernel virtual memory? (ie. it can then be used
> > > by any other CPU at any point without it having to use kmap?).
> >
> > No, everybody has to use kmap()/kunmap().
> So it is strictly a bug to expose a pointer returned by kmap to
> another CPU?

No, not at all. The pointers are all global. They have to be, since the
original kmap() user may well be scheduled away.

> > The "problem" is that you could in theory run out of kmap frames, since if
> > everybody does a kmap() in an interruptible context and you have lots and
> > lots of threads doing different pages, you'd run out. But that has nothing
> > to do with kmap_atomic(), which is basically limited to just the number of
> > CPU's and a (very small) level of nesting.
> This could be avoided with an anti-deadlock pool. If a task
> attempts a nested kmap and already holds a kmap, then give it
> exclusive access to this pool until it releases its last
> nested kmap.

We just sleep, waiting for somebody to release their. Again, that
obviously won't work in atomic context, but it's easy enough to just have
a "we need to have a few entries free" for the atomic case, and make it
busy-loop if it runs out (which is not going to happen in practice


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-18 23:28    [W:0.110 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site