[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Merge of rmind-uvmplock branch
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Andrew Doran wrote:
>> 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.
> So if there is no global P->V list for a page, how do pmap_page_protect and
> friends work? That is the point of the PV entry after all.
> For doing V->P, the phys_addr is gotten from accessing the page table and
> then a P->V lookup is done.
which port do you have in mind?
for x86, MDPAGE has a list of its pv entries and most or all P->V ops use it.
the global hash is there to help pmap_remove to find a specific pv entry
>> - 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.
> Still don't have a good algorithm for pmap_remove_all. Walking the page
> tables isn't very fast since the p->v overhead is annoying.
Main Index |
Thread Index |