From: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Milton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [1/1] powerpc: Update page in counter for CMM
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:24:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48FE3A84.2070207@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200810210436.m9L4aepT056796@sullivan.realtime.net>
Milton Miller wrote:
> X-Patchwork-Id: 5144
>> diff -puN arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c~powerpc_vrm_mm_pressure arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> --- linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c~powerpc_vrm_mm_pressure 2008-10-20 17:13:25.000000000 -0500
>> +++ linux-2.6-bjking1/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c 2008-10-20 17:13:25.000000000 -0500
> ..
>> @@ -318,9 +320,11 @@ good_area:
>> goto do_sigbus;
>> BUG();
>> }
>> - if (ret & VM_FAULT_MAJOR)
>> + if (ret & VM_FAULT_MAJOR) {
>> current->maj_flt++;
>> - else
>> + if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_CMO))
>> + atomic_inc((atomic_t *)(&(get_lppaca()->page_ins)));
>> + } else
>> current->min_flt++;
>> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> return 0;
>
> (1) why do we need atomic_inc and the hundreds or thousands of cycles to
> do the atomic inc in a per-cpu area?
We don't. I've now removed it.
> (2) assuming we make this a normal increment, should we keep the
> feature test or just do it unconditionally (ie is the additional load
> and branch worse that just doing the load and store of the counter --
> the address was previously reserved, right? (no question if
> it has to be atomic).
Simplified patch on the way...
> <Ramble things one might consider>
>
> Ben asked if we need to worry about the hypervisor clearing the
> count. If they treat it as a only-incrementing then we don't need
> to worry. And since its only an indicator, then we may not care
> about a big count by them interrupting between the load and store
This is a read only field from the hypervisor's perspective. They
shouldn't be clearing it.
> If we are worried about linux preemption, then we need to disable
> it to avoid crossing cpu variables or getting to this point multiple
> times. (I have not looked at the context to see if we are already
> disabled).
Looks to me like linux preemption is a possibility in this code, so
I've added the code to disable preemption around the increment.
-Brian
--
Brian King
Linux on Power Virtualization
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-21 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-20 22:19 [PATCH 1/1] powerpc: Update page in counter for CMM Brian King
2008-10-21 4:36 ` [1/1] " Milton Miller
2008-10-21 20:24 ` Brian King [this message]
2008-10-21 20:27 ` [PATCHv2 1/1] " Brian King
2008-10-22 0:11 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-10-22 15:53 ` [PATCHv3 " Brian King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48FE3A84.2070207@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=miltonm@bga.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.