On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:12 -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > struct mmu_gather {
> > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > unsigned int nr; /* == ~0U => fast mode */
> > + unsigned int max;
> > unsigned char fullmm; /* non-zero means full mm flush */
> > unsigned char need_flush; /* really unmapped some PTEs? */
> > unsigned long start_addr;
> > unsigned long end_addr;
> > - struct page *pages[FREE_PTE_NR];
> > + struct page **pages;
> > + struct page *local[8];
> > };
>
> Overall it looks OK - builds, boots & runs too. One question about
> the above bit ... why "8" elements in the local[] array? This ought to be
> a #define, maybe with a comment explaining the significance. It doesn't
> seem to fill out struct mmu_gather to some "nice" size. I can't think
> of why batching 8 at a time (in the fallback cannot allocate **pages case)
> is a good number. So is there some science to the choice, or did you
> pluck 8 out of the air?
Yeah, pretty much a random number small enough to make struct mmu_gather
fit on stack, the reason its not 1 is that a few more entries increase
performance a little and freeing more pages increases the chance the
page allocation works next time around.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href