From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:57:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview Message-Id: <20041119225701.0279f846.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <419EE911.20205@yahoo.com.au> References: <20041120020306.GA2714@holomorphy.com> <419EBBE0.4010303@yahoo.com.au> <20041120035510.GH2714@holomorphy.com> <419EC205.5030604@yahoo.com.au> <20041120042340.GJ2714@holomorphy.com> <419EC829.4040704@yahoo.com.au> <20041120053802.GL2714@holomorphy.com> <419EDB21.3070707@yahoo.com.au> <20041120062341.GM2714@holomorphy.com> <419EE911.20205@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: wli@holomorphy.com, torvalds@osdl.org, clameter@sgi.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > > per thread rss Given that we have contention problems updating a single mm-wide rss and given that the way to fix that up is to spread things out a bit, it seems wildly arbitrary to me that the way in which we choose to spread the counter out is to stick a bit of it into each task_struct. I'd expect that just shoving a pointer into mm_struct which points at a dynamically allocated array[NR_CPUS] of longs would suffice. We probably don't even need to spread them out on cachelines - having four or eight cpus sharing the same cacheline probably isn't going to hurt much. At least, that'd be my first attempt. If it's still not good enough, try something else. -- 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: aart@kvack.org