On 07/11/2012 05:42 PM, Nitin Gupta wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Seth Jennings > <sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/11/2012 01:26 PM, Nitin Gupta wrote: <snip> >>> Now obj-1 lies completely within page-2, so can be kmap'ed as usual. On >>> zs_unmap_object() we would just do the reverse and restore objects as in >>> figure-1. >> >> Hey Nitin, thanks for the feedback. >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you wouldn't be able to map >> ob2 while ob1 was mapped with this design. You'd need some sort of >> zspage level protection against concurrent object mappings. The >> code for that protection might cancel any benefit you would gain by >> doing it this way. >> > > Do you think blocking access of just one particular object (or > blocking an entire zspage, for simplicity) for a short time would be > an issue, apart from the complexity of implementing per zspage > locking? It would only need to prevent the mapping of the temporarily displaced object, but I said zspage because I don't know how we would do per-object locking. I actually don't know how we would do zspage locking either unless there is a lock in the struct page we can use. Either way, I think it is a complexity I think we'd be better to avoid for now. I'm trying to get zsmalloc in shape to bring into mainline, so I'm really focusing on portability first and low hanging performance fruit second. This optimization would be more like top-of-the-tree performance fruit :-/ However, if you want to try it out, don't let me stop you :) Thanks, Seth -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>