Message-Id: <200603220715.k2M7F1g04936@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Nick Piggin'" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
       "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: "'lkml'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] less tlb flush in unmap_vmas
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:15:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcZNbLkagc2f+RjATrGi5s3lL62s1AAEcTNw
In-Reply-To: <4420D82B.6080504@yahoo.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1293
Lines: 28

Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:53 PM
> Shaohua Li wrote:
> >In unmaping region, if current task doesn't need reschedule, don't do a
> >tlb_finish_mmu. This can reduce some tlb flushes.
> >
> >In the lmbench tests, this patch gives 2.1% improvement on exec proc
> >item and 4.2% on sh proc item.
> 
> The problem with this is that by the time we _do_ determine that a
> reschedule is needed, we might have built up a huge amount of work
> to do (which can probably be as much if not more exensive per-page
> as the unmapping), so scheduling latency can still be unacceptable
> so I'm afraid I don't think we can include this patch.

Interesting. In the old day, since mm->page_table_lock is held for the
entire unmap_vmas function, it was beneficial to introduce periodic
reschedule point and to drop the spin lock under pressure. Now that the
page table lock is fine-grained and is pushed into zap_pte_range(), I
would think scheduling latency would improve from lock contention
avoidance point of view.  It is not the case?

- Ken

-
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/