Hi Rik
quoted text > While being able to deal with used-once mappings in page reclaim
> could be a good idea, this would require us to be able to determine
> the difference between a page that was accessed once since it was
> faulted in and a page that got accessed several times.
it makes sense that read ahead hit assume used-once mapping, may be.
I will try it.
(may be, i can repost soon)
quoted text > Given that page faults have overhead too, it does not surprise me
> that read+write is faster than mmap+memcpy.
>
> In threaded applications, page fault overhead will be worse still,
> since the TLBs need to be synchronized between CPUs (at least at
> reclaim time).
sure.
but current is unnecessary large performance difference.
I hope improvement it because copy by mmapd is very common operation.
quoted text > Maybe we should just advise people to use read+write, since it is
> faster than mmap+memcpy?
Time is solved to it :)
thanks!
- kosaki
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC] mmaped copy too slow? , KOSAKI Motohiro , (Mon Jan 14, 8:20 pm)