From: Geunsik Lim <leemgs1@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] munmap: Flexible mem unmap operation interface for scheduling latency
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:57:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=V8gU6ax1b69dOwB_apB-s6eS2xg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1303802572.20212.4.camel@twins>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:20 +0900, Geunsik Lim wrote:
>> Yes. I also checked the patch that you stated at LKML mailing list previously.
>> In my thinking. I want to keep ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE related contents
>> that adjusted by Ingo, Robert, Andrew, and so on a long time ago
>> because I believe that we can overcome below problems sufficiently
>> in real world.
>> . LKML archive - http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/7/24/273
>> . LKML archive - http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/9/14/101
>
> Real ancient world, that was 2004, well before we grew preemptible
> mmu_gather.
>
>> In my experience, I did overcome below problems with this patch
>> based on ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE.
>>
>> 1) To solve temporal CPU contention
>> (e.g: case that cpu contention is 93% ~ 96% according to mmap/munmap
>> to access mass files )
>> 2) To get real-time or real-fast selectively on specified linux system
>
> I still don't get it, what kernel are you targeting here and why?
In my case, I tested at embedded target(e.g: 2.6.29 , 2.6.32) based on
arm cortex-a series for user responsiveness when trying to access mass files.
>
> -RT doesn't care, and clearly PREEMPT=n doesn't care because its not
> about latency at all, the only half-way point is PREEMPT=y and for that
> you could simply reduce ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE.
Thank you for your reviews. yes. we can simply reduce ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE.
I mean that we can control ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE after consider a suitable
munmap() operation size both preemptive mode and non-preemptive mode.
>
> Then again, what's the point, simply remove the whole thing (like I did)
> and your problem is solved too.
If we can get real-fast or real-time with advanced preemptive mmu_gather
sufficiently according to user needs sometimes, I also think that
that's good certainly.
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Geunsik Lim ( Samsung Electronics )
Blog : http://blog.naver.com/invain/
e-Mail: geunsik.lim@samsung.com
leemgs@gmail.com , leemgs1@gmail.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-26 23:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-25 10:44 [PATCH 0/4] munmap: Flexible mem unmap operation interface for scheduling latency Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] munmap: mem unmap operation size handling Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] munmap: sysctl extension for tunable parameter Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] munmap: kbuild menu for munmap interface Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 15:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-26 0:40 ` Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 15:45 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-04-26 0:42 ` Geunsik Lim
2011-04-26 22:51 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-04-27 0:07 ` Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] munmap: documentation of munmap operation interface Geunsik Lim
2011-04-25 19:47 ` [PATCH 0/4] munmap: Flexible mem unmap operation interface for scheduling latency Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-25 20:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-26 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-26 12:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-04-26 1:20 ` Geunsik Lim
2011-04-26 7:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-04-26 23:57 ` Geunsik Lim [this message]
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='BANLkTi=V8gU6ax1b69dOwB_apB-s6eS2xg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=leemgs1@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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).