Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Subject | Re: follow_page() performance regressions | |
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> So yes, the ZERO_PAGE handling in follow_page() is causing the slow-down here.
I suspect it could be any of:
- actual code generation differences in follow_page() (some SH person
needs to check that)
- some cache issue on SH. ZERO_PAGE is a single page at a fixed virtual
address, while it used to populate the page tables with individual
pages. Normally, this should be *better* for caching, but maybe there
is some conflict? What kind of caches does SH have (virtually indexed?)
- hackbench relying on follow_page() to populate the page tables, which
it no longer does for anonymous areas (using ZERO_PAGE directly
instead).
Again, normally this would speed things up (fewer TLB misses etc), but
if it then causes a new page fault that used to have been covered by
follow_page(), who knows?
What does hackbench actually do? Anybody?
Linus
|  |