Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> >>>>> the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
> >>>>> use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. And shame on me for missing it (this time!) at review.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's still time to fix this. Patches, please.
> >>>
> >>> Here it is. Made at 3.30 AM, build tested only.
> >>
> >> Prefer on top of Maddy's patch which makes it always a variable, rather
> >> than CONFIG_DEBUG_FS. It's got enough hair as it is.
> >
> > Something like this?
> >
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:02:03 +0300
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: nominate faultaround area in bytes rather then page order
> >
> > There are evidences that faultaround feature is less relevant on
> > architectures with page size bigger then 4k. Which makes sense since
> > page fault overhead per byte of mapped area should be less there.
> >
> > Let's rework the feature to specify faultaround area in bytes instead of
> > page order. It's 64 kilobytes for now.
> >
> > The patch effectively disables faultaround on architectures with
> > page size >= 64k (like ppc64).
> >
> > It's possible that some other size of faultaround area is relevant for a
> > platform. We can expose `fault_around_bytes' variable to arch-specific
> > code once such platforms will be found.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/memory.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 037b812a9531..252b319e8cdf 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -3402,63 +3402,47 @@ void do_set_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > update_mmu_cache(vma, address, pte);
> > }
> >
> > -#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4
> > +static unsigned long fault_around_bytes = 65536;
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned long fault_around_pages(void)
> > +{
> > + return rounddown_pow_of_two(fault_around_bytes) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned long fault_around_mask(void)
> > +{
> > + return ~(rounddown_pow_of_two(fault_around_bytes) - 1) & PAGE_MASK;
> > +}
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > -static unsigned int fault_around_order = FAULT_AROUND_ORDER;
> >
> > -static int fault_around_order_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > +static int fault_around_bytes_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > {
> > - *val = fault_around_order;
> > + *val = fault_around_bytes;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static int fault_around_order_set(void *data, u64 val)
> > +static int fault_around_bytes_set(void *data, u64 val)
> > {
>
> Kindly ignore the question if not relevant. Even though we need root
> access to alter the value, will we be fine with
> negative value?.
val is u64. or I miss something?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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>