Re: [lockup] Re: objrmap-core-1 (rmap removal for file mappings to avoid 4:4 in <=16G machines)

From: William Lee Irwin III
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 07:33:38 EST

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Do these tests actually make any forward progress at all, or is it
>> some bug which has sent the kernel into a loop?

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:49:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i think they make a forward progress so it's more of a DoS - but a very
> effective one, especially considering that i didnt even try hard ...
> what worries me is that there are apps that generate such vma patterns
> (for various reasons).
> I do believe that scanning ->i_mmap & ->i_mmap_shared is fundamentally
> flawed.

Whatever's going on, this looks like objrmap will turn into a quagmire.
I was vaguely holding out for anobjrmap to come in and get rid of the
dependency of the pte_chain -based ptov resolution on struct page. So,
any ideas on how to kick pte_chains of the habit of shoving information
in pagetable nodes' struct pages or am I (worst case) stuck eating
grossly oversized pagetable nodes and horrific internal fragmentation
(<= 20% pagetable utilization with 4K already) no matter what?

I guess I could allocate an array of the things pte_chains want in
struct pages and attach it to ->private at allocation-time, but that's
even worse wrt. cache and space footprint than the current state of
affairs, worse still on 32-bit, and scales poorly to small PAGE_MMUCOUNT.
I guess ->lru and ->list may handle it up to 4, but that smells bad.

My second guess is that with PAGE_MMUCOUNT >= 2 and only using one
pte_chain entry per PAGE_MMUCOUNT aligned and contiguous ptes, it's
still a net space win to just put information directly beside the
(potentially physical) pte pointers in the pte_chains.

Do either of these sound desirable? Any other ideas?

-- wli
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at