From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756594Ab0DIISx (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Apr 2010 04:18:53 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:41612 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754074Ab0DIISs (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Apr 2010 04:18:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] mm: Preemptible mmu_gather From: Peter Zijlstra To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Avi Kivity , Thomas Gleixner , Rik van Riel , Ingo Molnar , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , David Miller , Hugh Dickins , Mel Gorman In-Reply-To: <20100409032509.GH5683@laptop> References: <20100408191737.296180458@chello.nl> <20100408192722.858079986@chello.nl> <20100409032509.GH5683@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:18:43 +0200 Message-ID: <1270801123.20295.3235.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 13:25 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:17:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > @@ -39,30 +33,48 @@ > > struct mmu_gather { > > struct mm_struct *mm; > > unsigned int nr; /* set to ~0U means fast mode */ > > + unsigned int max; /* nr < max */ > > unsigned int need_flush;/* Really unmapped some ptes? */ > > unsigned int fullmm; /* non-zero means full mm flush */ > > - struct page * pages[FREE_PTE_NR]; > > +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_MMU_GATHER > > + struct arch_mmu_gather arch; > > +#endif > > + struct page **pages; > > + struct page *local[8]; > > Have you done some profiling on this? What I would like to see, if > it's not too much complexity, is to have a small set of pages to > handle common size frees, and then use them up first by default > before attempting to allocate more. > > Also, it would be cool to be able to chain allocations to avoid > TLB flushes even on big frees (overridable by arch of course, in > case they're doing some non-preeemptible work or you wish to break > up lock hold times). But that might be just getting over engineered. Did no profiling at all, back when I wrote this I was in a hurry to get this working for -rt. But yes, those things do look like something we want to look into, we can easily add a head structure to these pages like we did for the RCU batches. But as it stands I think we can do those things as incrementals on top of this, no? What kind of workload would you recommend I use to profile this?