From: Philipp Rumpf <prumpf@uzix.org>
To: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: sys_exit() and zap_page_range()
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:30:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20000709103011.A3469@fruits.uzix.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3965EC8E.5950B758@uow.edu.au>
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 12:43:26AM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On exit from mmap001, zap_page_range() is taking over 20 milliseconds on
> a 500MHz processor. Is there anything easy which can be done about
> this?
>
> No algorithmic optimisations leap out at me, so the options appear to
> be:
>
> (1) Live with it.
>
> (2) Pass the mm over to the swapper task and let it quietly
> throw things away in the background.
>
> (3) Put some conditional schedule calls in there.
>
> I note that Ingo's low-latency patch does (3). He's put `if
> (current->need_resched) schedule();' in the loop in zap_pte_range(). In
> 2.4, it looks like this won't work because of the lock held on
> mm->page_table_lock, and the lock held on mapping->i_shared_lock in
> vmtruncate().
>
> Can anyone suggest a simple, clean way of decreasing zap_page_range's
> scheduling latency, in a way which you're prepared to support?
Here's a simple way:
void zap_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address, unsigned long size)
{
pgd_t * dir;
unsigned long end = address + size;
int freed = 0;
if(size > PAGE_SIZE*4) {
while(size > PAGE_SIZE*4) {
conditional_schedule();
zap_page_range(mm, address, PAGE_SIZE*4);
size -= PAGE_SIZE*4;
address += PAGE_SIZE*4;
}
conditional_schedule();
zap_page_range(mm, address, size);
}
...
}
[PAGE_SIZE*4 is low, I suspect.]
For a clean solution, what I would love zap_page_range to look like is:
void zap_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address, unsigned long size)
{
pte_t * pte;
unsigned long end = address + size;
int freed = 0;
/*
* This is a long-lived spinlock. That's fine.
* There's no contention, because the page table
* lock only protects against kswapd anyway, and
* even if kswapd happened to be looking at this
* process we _want_ it to get stuck.
*/
if (address >= end)
BUG();
retry:
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
for_each_pte(pte, mm, address, end) {
pte_t page;
if(current->need_resched)
goto reschedule;
page = *pte;
address += PAGE_SIZE;
pte_clear(pte-1);
if (pte_none(page))
continue;
freed += free_pte(page);
}
spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
/*
* Update rss for the mm_struct (not necessarily current->mm)
*/
if (mm->rss > 0) {
mm->rss -= freed;
if (mm->rss < 0)
mm->rss = 0;
}
return;
reschedule:
spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
schedule();
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
goto retry;
}
The main point here is having something like
for_each_pte(pte,mm,address,end)
which doesn't require any compiler magic to be efficient on two-level
page table machines and should work well with four- and five-level page
tables. It looks to me like it'd simplify mm/*.c a lot, and would still
end up with preprocessed code very similar to what we have now.
In fact, I think it will become obvious soon that iterating through user
page tables without rescheduling isn't _ever_ a good idea - then both the
spin_lock and the conditional_reschedule could be moved into for_each_pte
(well, maybe for_each_pte_user or something) and we'd actually end up
with readable code for zap_page_range.
Philipp Rumpf
--
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.eu.org/Linux-MM/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-07-09 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-07-07 14:43 Andrew Morton
2000-07-07 16:42 ` Manfred Spraul
2000-07-09 17:30 ` Philipp Rumpf [this message]
2000-07-09 17:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
2000-07-09 23:54 ` Andrew Morton
2000-07-10 9:53 ` Philipp Rumpf
2000-07-10 15:36 ` Andrew Morton
2000-07-10 17:34 ` Philipp Rumpf
2000-07-11 8:39 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-07-11 11:24 ` Andrew Morton
2000-07-11 13:35 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-07-11 15:23 ` Richard Guenther
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=20000709103011.A3469@fruits.uzix.org \
--to=prumpf@uzix.org \
--cc=andrewm@uow.edu.au \
--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