Re: [PATCH 05/14] vrange: Add new vrange(2) system call

From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Mon Oct 07 2013 - 22:51:42 EST


Maybe, int madvise5(addr, length, MADV_DONTNEED|MADV_LAZY|MADV_SIGBUS,
&purged, &ret);

Another reason to make it hard is that madvise(2) is tight coupled with
with vmas split/merge. It needs mmap_sem's write-side lock and it hurt
anon-vrange test performance much heavily and userland might want to
make volatile range with small unit like "page size" so it's undesireable
to make it with vma. Then, we should filter out to avoid vma split/merge
in implementation if only MADV_LAZY case? Doable but it could make code
complicated and lost consistency with other variant of madvise.

I haven't seen your performance test result. Could please point out URLs?


--
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/