Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range()

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 10:37:02PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> You will NOT.
> The page_table_lock protects against page stealing of the VM and
> concurrent page-faults, nothing else.  There is no way you can get
> contention on it under any reasonable load that doesn't involve heavy
> out-of-memory behaviour, simply because
>  - the lock is per-mm
>  - all "regular" paths that care about this also get the mmap semaphore
> In short, that spinlock has _zero_ scalability impact.  You can
> theoretically get contention on it without memory pressure only by
> having hundreds of threads page-faulting at the same time (getting a
> read-lock on the mmap semaphore), but by then your performance has
> nothing to do with the spinlock, and everything to do with the page
> faults themselves. 
> (In fact, I can almost guarantee that most of the long hold-times are
> for exit(), not for munmap().  And in that case the spinlock cannot get
> any non-pagestealer contention at all, since nobody else is using the
> MM)

All I have to go on is a report this has happened and a low-priority
task to investigate it at some point in the future. I'll send you data
either demonstrating it or exonerating it when I eventually get to it.


Cheers,
Bill