Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels

[Nick Piggin]

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? That would make it easier, although it would need
to remove the global bit I think so when one task migrates CPUs
then the entry will be flushed and reloaded properly.


> 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.

--
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/