Re: page fault scalability patch final : i386 tested, x86_64 support added

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh_at_kernel.crashing.org>
Date: 2004-09-02 09:09:25
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 02:43, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> This would limit the time that the page_table_lock is held to a minimum
> and may still offer some of the performance improvements.
> 
> Would that be acceptable?

Not sure... You probably want to have the set_pte and the later flush_*
in the same lock to maintain expected semantics with those platforms...

It's not that a simple issue. I have ways to do sort-of lock-less by
using my PAGE_BUSY lock bit in the PTE instead on ppc64 and I think
doing that properly would result in almost no overhead over what we have
now, so I'm still interested. ppc32 would have to take a global
spinlock, but that's fine as we aren't looking for scalability on this
arch.

So while I like your idea, I think it needs a bit more thinking & work
on some platforms. David wrote about potential issues on sparc64, and I
wonder if it would be worth re-thinking some of the pte invalidation
semantics a bit (pushing more logic into set-pte, that is making it
higher level, rather than having the common code split changing of PTEs
and invalidations, with eventually some beign/end semantics for batches)

BTW. We should get David's patch in first thing before tackling with
this complicated issue (the one adding mm & addr to set_pte & friends).

Ben.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Sep 1 19:37:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:30 EST