On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 05:58 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:26 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > If we'd got to it earlier, yes. But 2.6.11 looks to be just a day or
> > > two away, and we've no idea why zap_pte_range or
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 05:58 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:26 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
If we'd got to it earlier, yes. But 2.6.11 looks to be just a day or
two away, and we've no idea why zap_pte_range or clear_page_range
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:26 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > If we'd got to it earlier, yes. But 2.6.11 looks to be just a day or
> > two away, and we've no idea why zap_pte_range or clear_page_range
> > would have reverted. Nor have we heard from Ingo
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:26 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 04:56 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > In other mail, you do expect people still to be using Ingo's patches,
> > > so probably this patch should stick there (and in -mm)
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 04:56 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > In other mail, you do expect people still to be using Ingo's patches,
> > so probably this patch should stick there (and in -mm) for now.
>
> Well all of these were fixed in the past so it may
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 04:56 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
In other mail, you do expect people still to be using Ingo's patches,
so probably this patch should stick there (and in -mm) for now.
Well all of these were fixed in the past so it may not be
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:26 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 04:56 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
In other mail, you do expect people still to be using Ingo's patches,
so probably this patch should stick there (and in -mm) for now.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 08:26 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
If we'd got to it earlier, yes. But 2.6.11 looks to be just a day or
two away, and we've no idea why zap_pte_range or clear_page_range
would have reverted. Nor have we heard from Ingo yet.
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 04:56 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through
> > > > lmbench.
> > >
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
> >
> > That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 13:41 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, it would be much better to optimize this away than just add a
> > scheduling point. It seems like we could do this lazily.
> >
>
> Oh? What do you mean by lazy? IMO it is sort of implemented lazily now.
>
Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:29 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
IIRC last time I really tested this a few months ago, the worst case
latency on that machine was about 150us. Currently its 422us from the
same clear_page_range code path.
Well it should be pretty trivial to
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:29 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > IIRC last time I really tested this a few months ago, the worst case
> > latency on that machine was about 150us. Currently its 422us from the
> > same clear_page_range code path.
> >
> Well it should be pretty
Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 10:27 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
If you are using i386 with 2-level page tables (no highmem), then
the behaviour should be more or less identical. Odd.
IIRC last time I really tested this a few months ago, the worst case
latency on that machine was about
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 10:27 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
> >>
> >>clear_page_range is also problematic.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I saw that from your other traces too. I know
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
clear_page_range is also problematic.
Yes, I saw that from your other traces too. I know there are plans
to improve clear_page_range during 2.6.12, but I didn't realize that
it had
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 21:03 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
> >
> > clear_page_range is also problematic.
>
> Yes, I saw that from your other traces too.
Heh, sorry, that one was a dupe...
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
>
> That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from it.
Should go into 2.6.11, right?
Lee
-
To
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
>
> clear_page_range is also problematic.
Yes, I saw that from your other traces too. I know there are plans
to improve clear_page_range during 2.6.12, but I didn't realize that
it had
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from it.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:06 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
>
> Great, if the previous patch fixed that latency then this new one
> will too, no need to report on that; but please get rid of the old
> patch before it leaks too many of your
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:06 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:16 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm just about to test this patch below: please give it a try: thanks...
>
> I'm very sorry, there's two things wrong with that
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:16 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I'm just about to test this patch below: please give it a try: thanks...
I'm very sorry, there's two things wrong with that version: _must_
increment addr before breaking out, and better to
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:16 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > Did something change recently in the VM that made copy_pte_range and
> > clear_page_range a lot more expensive? I noticed a reference in the
> > "Page Table Iterators" thread to excessive
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> Did something change recently in the VM that made copy_pte_range and
> clear_page_range a lot more expensive? I noticed a reference in the
> "Page Table Iterators" thread to excessive overhead introduced by
> aggressive page freeing. That sure looks
Ingo,
Did something change recently in the VM that made copy_pte_range and
clear_page_range a lot more expensive? I noticed a reference in the
"Page Table Iterators" thread to excessive overhead introduced by
aggressive page freeing. That sure looks like what is going on in
trace2. trace1 and
Ingo,
Did something change recently in the VM that made copy_pte_range and
clear_page_range a lot more expensive? I noticed a reference in the
Page Table Iterators thread to excessive overhead introduced by
aggressive page freeing. That sure looks like what is going on in
trace2. trace1 and
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Did something change recently in the VM that made copy_pte_range and
clear_page_range a lot more expensive? I noticed a reference in the
Page Table Iterators thread to excessive overhead introduced by
aggressive page freeing. That sure looks like what
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:16 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Did something change recently in the VM that made copy_pte_range and
clear_page_range a lot more expensive? I noticed a reference in the
Page Table Iterators thread to excessive overhead
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:16 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I'm just about to test this patch below: please give it a try: thanks...
I'm very sorry, there's two things wrong with that version: _must_
increment addr before breaking out, and better to check
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:06 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:16 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
I'm just about to test this patch below: please give it a try: thanks...
I'm very sorry, there's two things wrong with that version:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:06 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
Great, if the previous patch fixed that latency then this new one
will too, no need to report on that; but please get rid of the old
patch before it leaks too many of your pages.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from it.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
clear_page_range is also problematic.
Yes, I saw that from your other traces too. I know there are plans
to improve clear_page_range during 2.6.12, but I didn't realize that
it had become very
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from it.
Should go into 2.6.11, right?
Lee
-
To
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 21:03 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
clear_page_range is also problematic.
Yes, I saw that from your other traces too.
Heh, sorry, that one was a dupe... I should know
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
clear_page_range is also problematic.
Yes, I saw that from your other traces too. I know there are plans
to improve clear_page_range during 2.6.12, but I didn't realize that
it had
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 10:27 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Thanks, your patch fixes the copy_pte_range latency.
clear_page_range is also problematic.
Yes, I saw that from your other traces too. I know there are plans
to
Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 10:27 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
If you are using i386 with 2-level page tables (no highmem), then
the behaviour should be more or less identical. Odd.
IIRC last time I really tested this a few months ago, the worst case
latency on that machine was about
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:29 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
IIRC last time I really tested this a few months ago, the worst case
latency on that machine was about 150us. Currently its 422us from the
same clear_page_range code path.
Well it should be pretty trivial to add
Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:29 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
IIRC last time I really tested this a few months ago, the worst case
latency on that machine was about 150us. Currently its 422us from the
same clear_page_range code path.
Well it should be pretty trivial to
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 13:41 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
Agreed, it would be much better to optimize this away than just add a
scheduling point. It seems like we could do this lazily.
Oh? What do you mean by lazy? IMO it is sort of implemented lazily now.
That is, we
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from it.
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 04:56 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through
lmbench.
That second
44 matches
Mail list logo
