Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> Use TLB batching for MADV_FREE.  Adds another 10-15% extra performance
> to the MySQL sysbench results on my quad core system.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > 3) because of this, we can treat any such accesses as
> > >    happening simultaneously with the MADV_FREE and
> > >    as illegal, aka undefined behaviour territory and
> > >    we do not need to worry about them
> >
> >
> > Yes, but I'm wondering if it is legal in all architectures.
>
>
> It's similar to trying to access memory during an munmap.
>
> You may be able to for a short time, but it'll come back to
> haunt you.

The question is whether the architecture specific tlb
flushing code will break or not.


> > > 4) because we flush the tlb before releasing the page
> > >    table lock, other CPUs cannot remove this page from
> > >    the address space - they will block on the page
> > >    table lock before looking at this pte
> >
> >
> > We don't when the ptl is split.
>
>
> Even then we do.  Each invocation of zap_pte_range() only touches
> one page table page, and it flushes the TLB before releasing the
> page table lock.

What kernel are you looking at? -rc7 and rc6-mm1 don't, AFAIKS.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/