Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()

[Minchan Kim]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:09 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:09:47 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> My humble opinion is following as.
>>
>> Couldn't we synchronize rcu in that cases(munmap, exit and so on)?
>> It can delay munap and exit but it would be better than handling them by more
>> complicated things, I think. And both cases aren't often cases so we
>> can achieve advantage than disadvantage?
>>
>
> In most case, a program is single threaded. And sychronize_rcu() in unmap path
> just adds very big overhead.

Yes.
I suggested you that consider single-thread app's regression, please. :)

First I come to my head is we can count number of thread.
Yes. thread number is a not good choice.

As a matter of fact, I want to work it adaptively.
If the process start to have many threads, speculative page fault turn
on or turn off.
I know it's not easy. I hope other guys have good ideas.

>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/