lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Another go at speculative page faults
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:34:49AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 23:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I figured I'd give my 2010 speculative fault series another spin:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/4/257
> >
> > Since then I think many of the outstanding issues have changed sufficiently to
> > warrant another go. In particular Al Viro's delayed fput seems to have made it
> > entirely 'normal' to delay fput(). Lai Jiangshan's SRCU rewrite provided us
> > with call_srcu() and my preemptible mmu_gather removed the TLB flushes from
> > under the PTL.
> >
> > The code needs way more attention but builds a kernel and runs the
> > micro-benchmark so I figured I'd post it before sinking more time into it.
> >
> > I realize the micro-bench is about as good as it gets for this series and not
> > very realistic otherwise, but I think it does show the potential benefit the
> > approach has.
> >
> > (patches go against .18-rc1+)
>
> I think patch 2/6 is borken:
>
> error: patch failed: mm/memory.c:2025
> error: mm/memory.c: patch does not apply
>
> and related, as you mention, I would very much welcome having the
> introduction of 'struct faut_env' as a separate cleanup patch. May I
> suggest renaming it to fault_cxt?

What about extend start using 'struct vm_fault' earlier by stack?

--
Kirill A. Shutemov


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-22 14:01    [W:0.354 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site