Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:04:10 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] increase struct page size?!
Message-ID: <20070522050410.GQ19966@holomorphy.com>
References: <20070519012530.GB15569@wotan.suse.de> <20070519181501.GC19966@holomorphy.com> <20070520052229.GA9372@wotan.suse.de> <20070520084647.GF19966@holomorphy.com> <20070520092552.GA7318@wotan.suse.de> <20070521080813.GQ31925@holomorphy.com> <20070521092742.GA19642@wotan.suse.de> <20070521224316.GC11166@waste.org> <20070522013951.GP19966@holomorphy.com> <20070522015703.GE27743@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070522015703.GE27743@wotan.suse.de>
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2570
Lines: 50

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:39:51PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> address (virtual and physical are trivially inter-convertible), mock
>> up something akin to what filesystems do for anonymous pages, etc.
>> The real objection everyone's going to have is that driver writers
>> will stain their shorts when faced with the rules for handling such
>> things. The thing is, I'm not entirely sure who these driver writers
>> that would have such trouble are, since the driver writers I know
>> personally are sophisticates rather than walking disaster areas as such
>> would imply. I suppose they may not be representative of the whole.

On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:57:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> That's not the objection I would have. I would say that firstly, I
> don't think the mem_map overhead is very significant (at any rate,
> an allocated-on-demand metadata is not going to be any smaller if
> you fill up on pagecache...). Secondly, I think there is merit to
> having the same page metadata used by the major subsystems, because
> it helps for locality of reference.

The size isn't the advantage being cited; I'd actually expect the net
result to be larger. It's the control over the layout of the metadata
for cache locality and even things like having enough flags, folding
buffer_head -like affairs into the per-page metadata for filesystems
and so reaping cache locality benefits even there (assuming it works
out in other respects), and so on.

Passing pages between subsystems doesn't seem very significant to me.
There isn't going to be much locality of reference, or even any
guarantee that the subsystem gets fed a cache hot page structure. The
subsystem being passed the page will have its own cache hot accounting
structures to stick the information about the memory into.


On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:57:03AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> But I haven't explored the idea enough myself to know whether there
> would be any really killer benefits to this. Delayed metadata freeing
> via RCU without holding up the freeing of the actual page would have
> been something, however I can do similar with speculative references
> now (or whenever the code gets merged), which doesn't even require the
> RCU overhead.

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about there, but it sounds
interesting.


-- wli
-
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/