lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC v5 0/8] Support volatile for anonymous range
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> This is still RFC because we need more input from user-space
> people, more stress test, design discussion about interface/reclaim

Speaking as one of the authors of tcmalloc, I don't see any particular
need for this new system call for tcmalloc. We are fine using
madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) and don't notice any significant
performance issues caused by it. Background: we throttle how
quickly we release memory back to the system (1-10MB/s), so
we do not call madvise() very much, and we don't end up reusing
madvise-ed away pages at a fast rate. My guess is that we won't
see large enough application-level performance improvements to
cause us to change tcmalloc to use this system call.

> - What's different with madvise(DONTNEED)?
>
> System call semantic
>
> DONTNEED makes sure user always can see zero-fill pages after
> he calls madvise while mvolatile can see old data or encounter
> SIGBUS.

Do you need a new system call for this? Why not just a new flag to madvise
with weaker guarantees than zero-filling? All of the implementation changes
you point out below could be triggered from that flag.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-03 19:01    [W:0.142 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site