Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on nativekernels
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Tue Jun 09 2009 - 13:10:24 EST
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:26:47AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > The idea seems nice but isn't the problem that kmap gives back a
> > > basically 1st class kernel virtual memory? (ie. it can then be used
> > > by any other CPU at any point without it having to use kmap?).
> > No, everybody has to use kmap()/kunmap().
> So it is strictly a bug to expose a pointer returned by kmap to
> another CPU?
No, not at all. The pointers are all global. They have to be, since the
original kmap() user may well be scheduled away.
> > The "problem" is that you could in theory run out of kmap frames, since if
> > everybody does a kmap() in an interruptible context and you have lots and
> > lots of threads doing different pages, you'd run out. But that has nothing
> > to do with kmap_atomic(), which is basically limited to just the number of
> > CPU's and a (very small) level of nesting.
> This could be avoided with an anti-deadlock pool. If a task
> attempts a nested kmap and already holds a kmap, then give it
> exclusive access to this pool until it releases its last
> nested kmap.
We just sleep, waiting for somebody to release their. Again, that
obviously won't work in atomic context, but it's easy enough to just have
a "we need to have a few entries free" for the atomic case, and make it
busy-loop if it runs out (which is not going to happen in practice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/