From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Rajesh Venkatasubramanian <vrajesh@umich.edu>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.6-rc3-mm1
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 17:09:45 +0100 (BST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405051653010.2328-100000@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040505161416.A4008@infradead.org>
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 01:46:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +rmap-14-i_shared_lock-fixes.patch
> > +rmap-15-vma_adjust.patch
> > +rmap-16-pretend-prio_tree.patch
> > +rmap-17-real-prio_tree.patch
> > +rmap-18-i_mmap_nonlinear.patch
> > +rmap-19-arch-prio_tree.patch
> >
> > More VM work from Hugh
Of course, all the hard work here is actually from Rajesh.
> That's about 600 lines of additional code. And that prio tree code is
> used a lot, so even worse for that caches.
Fair concern. It has been discussed offlist, and you're certainly not
the only one to feel that way. I'm neutral, just making the patches
available. Even Rajesh is firmly of the opinion that it has to be
thrown out if it doesn't pay off.
> Do we have some benchmarks of real-life situation where the prio trees
> show a big enough improvement or some 'exploits' where the linear list
> walking leads to DoS situtations?
Andrew and Ingo wrote "exploits", though whether they amount to DoS
I'm not convinced. We do feel vulnerable to corner cases, and more
secure with Rajesh's work in place. But I don't believe anyone has
shown a _real-life_ case for it yet - nor a case against it either.
Rajesh has certainly shown its value in the corner cases.
> The bases objrmap/anonrmap changes keep the LOC pretty much the same as
> the old pte-chain based code, but this is really a whole lot of code bloating
> up the kernel and I'd prefer to see some numbers before it's going in..
I'm hoping someone (at OSDL?) will do those numbers: probably easiest
once the basic objrmap+anonrmap has gone into 2.6.7-pre, then that can
be compared against the same with the prio_tree patches added (and fair
to include Rajesh's latest work, the prefetching, in any such testing).
I don't place a lot of faith in numbers coming from me!
Hugh
--
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 prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-05 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20040430014658.112a6181.akpm@osdl.org>
2004-05-05 15:14 ` 2.6.6-rc3-mm1 Christoph Hellwig
2004-05-05 16:09 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2004-05-05 16:50 2.6.6-rc3-mm1 Rajesh Venkatasubramanian
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=Pine.LNX.4.44.0405051653010.2328-100000@localhost.localdomain \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vrajesh@umich.edu \
/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