From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:56:14 +0000 Subject: Re: Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20050309201324.29721.28956.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20050309201344.29721.26698.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20050309201344.29721.26698.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (Christoph Lameter's message of "Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:13:44 -0800 (PST)") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Lameter writes: > Do not use the page_table_lock in do_anonymous_page. This will significantly > increase the parallelism in the page fault handler in SMP systems. The patch > also modifies the definitions of _mm_counter functions so that rss and anon_rss > become atomic. I still think it's a bad idea to add arbitary process size limits like this: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ATOMIC_TABLE_OPS > +/* > + * Atomic page table operations require that the counters are also > + * incremented atomically > +*/ > +#define set_mm_counter(mm, member, value) atomic_set(&(mm)->member, value) > +#define get_mm_counter(mm, member) ((unsigned long)atomic_read(&(mm)->member)) > +#define update_mm_counter(mm, member, value) atomic_add(value, &(mm)->member) > +#define MM_COUNTER_T atomic_t Can you use atomic64_t on 64bit systems at least? -Andi