On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:43:59PM -0700, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:Unfortunately, we are at least several months away from being able to provide numbers to justify batching - assuming it is really needed. We need large systems running real user workloads. I wish we had that available right now, but we don't. It also depends on what you mean by "no batching". If you mean that the notifier gets called for each pte that is removed from the page table, then the overhead is clearly very high for some operations. Consider the unmap of a very large object. A TLB flush per page will be too costly. However, something based on the mmu_gather seems like it should provide exactly what is needed to do efficient flushing of the TLB. The GRU does not require that it be called in a sleepable context. As long as the notifier callout provides the mmu_gather and vaddr range being flushed, the GRU can do the efficiently do the rest. -- jack --
| hooanon05 | [PATCH 67/67] merge aufs |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 008/196] Chinese: add translation of volatile-considered-harmful.txt |
| monstr | [PATCH 33/52] [microblaze] bug headers files |
| Oliver Pinter | Re: x86: 4kstacks default |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
