From: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
To: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: objrmap and nonlinear vma:s
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1098702692.23463.123.camel@kubu.opensource.se> (raw)
Hello all,
I am currently investigating how to unmap a physical page belonging to a
nonlinear file backed vma.
By studying the 2.6.9 source code and by reading the excellent VMM book
by Mel Gorman I believe that:
- physical pages belonging to linear file backed vma:s are currently
reverse mapped using the prio_tree i_mmap.
- physical pages belonging to nonlinear file backed vma:s are currently
reverse mapped using the linked list i_mmap_nonlinear.
Please let me know if something above is incorrect.
The reverse mapping code for nonlinear vma:s does not seem to scale very
well today with the linked list implementation. It seems to me that the
assumption is made that the number of users of nonlinear vma:s are few
and that they probably not very often want do anything resulting in a
reverse mapping operation.
Some questions:
1) Is everyone happy with the solution today? Is the linked list
implementation fast enough? It seems to me that the nonlinear code in
try_to_unmap_file() is good enough for swap but does not always unmap
the requested page. This behavior is not very suitable for memory
hotswap. And a linear scan of all page tables is not very suitable for
swap.
2) Any particular reason why the prio_tree is avoided for nonlinear
vma:s? We could modify the code to use one "union shared" together with
one vm_pgoff per page in struct vm_area_struct for nonlinear vma:s. That
way it would be possible to rmap nonlinear vma:s with the prio_tree. But
maybe that is unholy misuse of the prio_tree data structure, who knows.
3) Using prio_tree to rmap nonlinear vma:s like above would of course
lead to a higher memory use per page belonging to a nonlinear vma. That
raises the question why nonlinear vma:s aren't implemented as several
vma:s - one vma per page? I mean, if remap_file_pages() should be able
to change protection per page in the future - exactly what do we have
then? Several vma:s?
Thanks!
/ magnus
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next reply other threads:[~2004-10-25 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-25 11:11 Magnus Damm [this message]
2004-10-25 16:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-25 18:53 ` Magnus Damm
2004-10-25 16:29 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-10-25 19:35 ` Magnus Damm
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=1098702692.23463.123.camel@kubu.opensource.se \
--to=damm@opensource.se \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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