From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
To: David VomLehn <dvomlehn@cisco.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
C Michael Sundius <Michael.sundius@sciatl.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
jfraser@broadcom.com, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Subject: Re: sparsemem support for mips with highmem
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:51:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48AC83CB.4000100@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48AC7056.8070903@cisco.com>
David VomLehn wrote:
>
> For a flat memory model, the page descriptors array memmap is
> contiguously allocated in low memory. For sparse memory, you only
> allocate memory to hold page descriptors that actually exist. If you
> don't enable CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, you introduce a level of
> indirection where the top bits of an address gives you an index into an
> array that points to an array of page descriptors for that section of
> memory. This has some performance impact relative to flat memory due to
> the extra memory access to read the pointer to the array of page
> descriptors.
Right.
> If you do enable CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, you still allocate memory to
> hold page descriptors, but you map that memory into virtual space so
> that a given page descriptor for a physical address is at the offset
> from the beginning of the virtual memmap corresponding to the page frame
> number of that address. This gives you a single memmap, just like you
> had in the flat memory case, though memmap now lives in virtual address
> space. Since memmap now lives in virtual address space, you don't need
> to use any memory to back the virtual addresses that correspond to the
> holes in your physical memory, which is how you save a lot of physical
> memory. The performance impact relative to flag memory is now that of
> having to go through the TLB to get to the page descriptor.
Correct.
> If you are using CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP and the corresponding TLB
> entry is present, you expect this will be faster than the extra memory
> access you do when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP is not enabled, even if that
> memory is in cache. This seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to
> me. Since TLB entries cover much more memory than the cache, it also
> seems like there would be a much better chance that you already have the
> corresponding TLB entry than having the indirect memory pointer in
> cache. And, in the worst case, reading the TLB entry is just another
> memory access, so it's closely equivalent to not enabling
> CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP.
Exactly.
> So, if I understand this right, the overhead on a MIPS processor using
> flat memory versus using sparse memory with CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP
> enabled would be mostly the difference between accessing unmapped
> memory, which doesn't go through the TLB, and mapped memory, which does.
> Even though there is some impact due to TLB misses, this should be
> pretty reasonable. What a way cool approach!
Great. 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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-20 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-14 22:05 sparsemem support for mips with highmem C Michael Sundius
2008-08-14 22:35 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-14 23:16 ` C Michael Sundius
2008-08-14 23:52 ` C Michael Sundius
2008-08-15 0:02 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-15 8:03 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2008-08-15 15:48 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-15 16:12 ` C Michael Sundius
2008-08-15 16:20 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-15 16:33 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2008-08-15 17:16 ` C Michael Sundius
2008-08-15 17:37 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-15 18:17 ` C Michael Sundius
2008-08-15 18:23 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-16 20:07 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2008-08-18 16:44 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-08-18 21:24 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-18 21:27 ` Dave Hansen
2008-08-18 21:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-16 21:46 ` Michael Sundius
2009-01-21 14:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-18 21:57 ` David VomLehn
2008-08-19 13:06 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-19 23:38 ` David VomLehn
2008-08-19 23:53 ` Jon Fraser
2008-08-20 13:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-08-20 19:28 ` David VomLehn
2008-08-20 20:51 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2008-08-15 16:30 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2008-08-26 9:09 ` Andy Whitcroft
2008-10-06 20:15 ` Have ever checked in your mips sparsemem code into mips-linux tree? C Michael Sundius
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=48AC83CB.4000100@linux-foundation.org \
--to=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=Michael.sundius@sciatl.com \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dvomlehn@cisco.com \
--cc=jfraser@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).