Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview

From: Nick Piggin <>
Date: 2004-11-20 12:45:59
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>I think this sounds like it might be a good idea. I prefer it to having
>>the unbounded error of sloppy rss (as improbable as it may be in practice).
> It may also be faster since the processors can have exclusive cache lines.


> This means we need to move rss into the task struct. But how does one get
> from mm struct to task struct? current is likely available most of
> the time. Is that always the case?

It is available everywhere that mm_struct is, I guess. So yes, I
think `current` should be OK.

>>The per thread rss may wrap (maybe not 64-bit counters), but even so,
>>the summation over all threads should still end up being correct I
> Note though that the mmap_sem is no protection. It is a read lock and may
> be held by multiple processes while incrementing and decrementing rss.
> This is likely reducing the number of collisions significantly but it wont
> be a  guarantee like locking or atomic ops.

Yeah the read lock won't do anything to serialise it. I think what Linus
is saying is that we _don't care_ most of the time (because the error will
be bounded). But if it happened that we really do care anywhere, then the
write lock should be sufficient.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Nov 19 20:56:32 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:32 EST