[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Merge of rmind-uvmplock branch
> Mindaugas, thank you very much for your hard work!!
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:16:06AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> the idea is to protect pv chains with object lock, right?
> That was the initial driver for me anyway.
> Now that this work is in, there are some changes that can be built upon it
> to realise the full value -- and hopefully make exit() etc. very cheap.
> Looking at this from an x86 perspective but some of the ideas will apply
> to other ports:
> - My initial idea was to kill the global PV hash and associated locks. To
> replace this we would embed a list head in each uvm_map_entry (or wherever
> else a mapping is managed). This would be supplied by the caller on each
> relevant pmap call - pmap_enter() and so on. PV entries would be added to
> and removed from this structure by the pmap module. An initial
> implementation could get away with a dumb linked list I think.
i guess the list can be too long for a large map entry.
probably it's better to start with a little more sophisticated structure.
> - So then PV entries tracked with the mapping instead of globally. Once
> pmap_remove_all() has been called pmap_remove() could switch to a
> "shortcut" mode and become very quick. From memory I believe all it would
> need to do is tear down the software PV entries, and not touch any page or
> pmap state. Tearing down pmap state would be deferred to pmap_destroy().
> At that point we can then clear out the pmap's uvm_objects and free all
> pmap pages in bulk. This would avoid potentially thousands of expensive
> scans and atomic updates to the hardware paging structures, which account
> for the bulk of expense during exit() etc. If the system is short on
> memory we might want a mechanism to switch CPUs away from this pmap if
> they are hanging onto it as pmap_kernel - i.e. preventing pmap_destroy()
> from being called.
sounds like a good idea.
> - In the x86 pmap, we have a number retryable sequences when we operate in
> the P->V direction. pmap_page_remove() for instance. I think these can
> now be simplified as there are fewer concurrency issues, no need for
> retryable sequences. Yamamoto-san can you confirm?
i think so, yes.
Main Index |
Thread Index |