Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Dave McCracken wrote:

> 
> --On Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:02:27 -0700 "Martin J. Bligh"
> <mbligh@aracnet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >> I'm just trying to decide what this might do for a news server with
> >> hundreds of readers mmap()ing a GB history file. Benchmarks show the 2.5
> >> has more latency the 2.4, and this is likely to make that more obvious.
> > 
> > On the other hand, I don't think shared pagetables have an mmap hook,
> > though that'd be easy enough to add. And if you're not reading the whole 
> > history file, presumably the PTEs will only be sparsely instantiated
> > anyway.
> 
> Actually shared page tables work on any shared memory area, no matter how
> it was created.  When a page fault occurs and there's no pte page already
> allocated (the common case for any newly mapped region) it checks the vma
> to see if it's shared.  If it's shared, it gets the address_space for that
> vma, then walks through all the shared vmas looking for one that's mapped
> at the same address and offset and already has a pte page that can be
> shared.

That's more encouraging.
 
> So if your history file is mapped at the same address for all your
> processes then it will use shared page tables.  While it might be a nice
> add-on to allow sharing if they're mapped on the same pte page boundary,
> that doesn't seem likely enough to justify the extra work.

The reader processes are either forked (INN w/ daemon nnrpd) or pthreads
(twister, earthquake, diablo). So everything will be the same.

Another thought, how does this play with NUMA systems? I don't have the
problem, but presumably there are implications.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

--
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/