On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:24 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > I'm not liking this, its not a constant operation as the name implies.
> >
> > OK, I'll think of something better.
> >
> > > And it style is a bit out of line with the rest of rmap.
> > >
> > > The thing it actually does is page_mkclean(), all it doesn't do is
> > > setting the pte read-only.
> > >
> > > I can understand you wanting to avoid the overhead of the minor faults
> > > resulting from using page_mkclean(), but I'm not sure its worth it.
> >
> > It would be nice if the cost of MS_ASYNC wouldn't be too high. And I
> > do have the feeling that minor faults are far more expensive than
> > cleaning the dirty bit in the ptes.
> >
> > Do you have any numbers?
>
> None what so ever, but I always think of msync as a rare function
> (infrequent when compared to (minor) faults overall). But I don't have
> numbers backing that up either.
>
> Also, the radix tree scan you do isn't exactly cheap either.
>
> So what I was wondering is whether its worth optimizing this at the cost
> of another rmap walker. (one with very dubious semantics at that - it
> clears the pte dirty bit but doesn't particularly care about that nor
> does it respect the PG_dirty / PTE dirty relation)
What this functionality requires is that MS_ASYNC is a full barrier wrt.
dirtyness. That is, we want to call set_page_dirty_mappig() as soon as
we touch a page in a dirtying fashion after MS_{,A}SYNC gets called.
Hence we need the full page_mkclean() functionality, otherwise we don't
set AS_CMTIME again in time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
