Re: [RFC] mlock: release mmap_sem every 256 faulted pages

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:00:52 -0800 Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to sollicit comments on this proposal:
> > 
> > Currently mlock() holds mmap_sem in exclusive mode while the pages get
> > faulted in. In the case of a large mlock, this can potentially take a
> > very long time.
> 
> A more compelling description of why this problem needs addressing
> would help things along.

Michel, as far as I know, now Michael Rubin (now I'm ccing him) are trying
to make automatic MM test suit. So if possible, can you please make
test case which reproduce your workload?

http://code.google.com/p/samplergrapher/


I hope to join to solve your issue. and I also hope you help to understand
and reproduce your issue. 

Thanks.

> 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Limit batch size to 256 pages in order to reduce
> > +		 * mmap_sem hold time.
> > +		 */
> > +		nfault = nstart + 256 * PAGE_SIZE;
> 
> It would be nicer if there was an rwsem API to ask if anyone is
> currently blocked in down_read() or down_write().  That wouldn't be too
> hard to do.  It wouldn't detect people polling down_read_trylock() or
> down_write_trylock() though.

Andrew, yes it is certinally optimal. But I doubt it improve mlock
performance a lot. because mlock is _very_ slooooooow syscall.
lock regrabing may be cheap than it. So, _IF_ you can allow, I hope
we take a simple method at first. personally I think Michel move 
forwarding right way. then I don't hope to make a hardest hurdle.

Thanks.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>