Re: [patch 2/8] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write

[Miklos Szeredi]

> > > I can understand you wanting to avoid the overhead of the minor faults
> > > resulting from using page_mkclean(), but I'm not sure its worth it.
> > 
> > It would be nice if the cost of MS_ASYNC wouldn't be too high.  And I
> > do have the feeling that minor faults are far more expensive than
> > cleaning the dirty bit in the ptes.
> > 
> > Do you have any numbers?
> 
> None what so ever, but I always think of msync as a rare function
> (infrequent when compared to (minor) faults overall). But I don't have
> numbers backing that up either.

It depends entirely on the usage pattern.  I can imagine this sort of
use:

  mmap
  write lots of data to memory
  msync(MS_ASYNC)
  overwrite previous data
  msync(MS_ASYNC)
  ...

In this case write protecting and faulting the pages will be slower,
than just checking the page tables.

> Also, the radix tree scan you do isn't exactly cheap either. 
> 
> So what I was wondering is whether its worth optimizing this at the cost
> of another rmap walker. (one with very dubious semantics at that - it
> clears the pte dirty bit but doesn't particularly care about that nor
> does it respect the PG_dirty / PTE dirty relation)

I don't think this is dubious.  The pte dirty bit in this case means,
that the page was modified _since_the_last_call_ of this function.

The PG_dirty on the other hand means, that the page will need to be
written back.  So they have completely different meanings.

Thanks,
Miklos
-
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/