From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pgd_free, pmd_free, and pte_free trapping memory.
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:48:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040316144820.A559@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040316112424.GA20203@lnx-holt>
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 05:24:24AM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> Looking through the code, we have identified the source of the problem.
> The fork is occuring on one cpu where the pgd, pmd, and pte allocations
> get pages of memory local to that cpu. The worker thread is then
> migrated to a different cpu where it exits. The pages are then placed
> on the cpu which is very distant from where the memory is located.
>
> I looked at the i386 code which appears to have been very similar to the
> ia64 at one point in time, but no longer. They appear to have completely
> eliminated the quicklists. Is this the right direction for ia64?
>
> Since, when the pgd, pmd, and pte are ready to be freed, they are
> zeroed out again, I understand the benefit to keeping the entry around
> to save the time for zeroing out the page again. Why not have a single
> quicklist where all three are placed. How would node locality best play
> into placing items on the lists? Should we have one quicklist on
> each cpu that a cpu returns node local pages and then a node quicklist
> where we place pages that are not node local using cmpxchg?
Tjis quicklist thing is a workaround for not having per-cpu pages in
Linux <= 2.4. Your patch is a workaround for a workaround and gets a little
ugly. I'd say just rip the quicklists out like x86 and benchmark it.
That's less code and thus less complexity which is always good. Now if
the pre-zeroing actually makes a difference we might have to keep small
pre-zeroed list around, but I doubt this is really good idea (or even
nessecary)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-16 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-16 11:24 pgd_free, pmd_free, and pte_free trapping memory Robin Holt
2004-03-16 14:48 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2004-03-16 15:24 ` Robin Holt
2004-03-16 15:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-17 12:27 ` Robin Holt
2004-03-17 16:20 ` Jack Steiner
2004-03-17 16:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-17 17:10 ` David Mosberger
2004-03-17 20:33 ` Jack Steiner
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=20040316144820.A559@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox