From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org,
akpm@osdl.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, frankeh@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/9] Guest page hinting: volatile page cache.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:29:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1157128157.28577.129.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1157126640.21733.43.camel@localhost>
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 18:04 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> 3) The page-has-a-writable-mapping (PG_writable) bit is set when the
> first writable pte for a page is established. The page needs to have a
> different state if a writable pte exists compared to a read-only page.
> The alternative without the page bit would be to do the state change
> every time a writable pte is established or to search all ptes of a
> given page. Both have performance implications.
What are the performance implications? Do they completely erase any
performance gains that these patches might have given in the first
place? Has there been any evaluation of these other two alternatives?
As I understand it, carrying out this performance analysis would be very
difficult for most of the kernel community to perform.
Keeping a nice count of the number of writable PTEs sounds like
something that might be generally useful. Could we split
page->_mapcount to keep track of r/o and r/w ptes separately? Or,
perhaps a single bit in it can be utilized to replace PG_writable,
instead.
-- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-01 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-01 11:09 [patch 3/9] Guest page hinting: volatile page cache Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 14:54 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 15:29 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 15:37 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 14:57 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 15:31 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 15:48 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-09-01 16:04 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 16:18 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 16:25 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 16:37 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 16:56 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 17:16 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 17:42 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 18:03 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 18:04 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 18:23 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-01 18:31 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 18:41 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-04 11:21 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-05 18:27 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-06 10:49 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 16:29 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2006-09-01 17:02 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-01 17:05 ` Dave Hansen
2006-09-13 18:21 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-09-14 8:56 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-09-14 9:23 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-09-15 8:36 ` Martin Schwidefsky
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-15 17:50 Chuck Ebbert
2006-09-18 8:08 ` Martin Schwidefsky
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=1157128157.28577.129.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=frankeh@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.org \
/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).