Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
When you unmap or map, you need to touch the pte entries and know the
pages involved, so shouldn't be equivalent to a list_del and list_add
for each page impacted by the map/unmap operation?
When you unmap and map you must currently get exclusive access to the
cachelines of the pte and the cacheline of the page struct. If we use a
list_move on page->lru then we have would have to update pointers in up
to 4 other page structs. Thus we need exclusive access to 4 additional
cachelines. This triples the number of cachelines touched. Instead of 2
cachelines we need 6.
Yes, good point, I see what you mean in terms of impact. But the trade
off could come from shrink_active_list() which does
list_del(&page->lru)
if (!reclaim_mapped && other_conditions)
list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
...
In the case mentioned above, we would triple the cachlines when an area
is mapped/unmapped (which might be acceptable since it is a state change
for the page ;) ). In the trade-off I mentioned, it would happen
everytime reclaim is invoked and it has nothing to do with a page changing
state.
Did I miss something?
--
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
