Re: MMU notifiers review and some proposals

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 01:38:13PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> 1) absolute minimal intrusion into the kernel common code, and
>    absolute minimum number of branches added to the kernel fast
>    paths. Kernel is faster than your "minimal" type of notifiers when
>    they're disarmed.

BTW. is this really significant? Having one branch per pte
I don't think is necessarily slower than 2 branches per unmap.

The 2 branches will use more icache and more branch history. One
branch even once per pte in the unmapping loop is going to remain
hot in icache and branch history isn't it?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux