On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:41:31 +0000 (GMT), Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Mauricio Lin wrote: > > > > Now I am testing with /proc/pid/smaps and the values are showing that > > the old one is faster than the new one. So I will keep using the old > > smaps version. > > Sorry, I don't have time for more than the briefest look. > > It appears that your old resident_mem_size method is just checking > pte_present, whereas your new smaps_pte_range method is also doing > pte_page (yet no prior check for pfn_valid: wrong) and checking > !PageReserved i.e. accessing the struct page corresponding to each > pte. So it's not a fair comparison, your new method is accessing > many more cachelines than your old method. > > Though it's correct to check pfn_valid and !PageReserved to get the > same total rss as would be reported elsewhere, I'd suggest that it's > really not worth the overhead of those struct page accesses: just > stick with the pte_present test. So, I can remove the PageReserved macro without no problems, right?
> > Your smaps_pte_range is missing pte_unmap? Yes, but I already fixed this problem. Paul Mundt has checked the unmap missing. Thanks, Let me perform new experiments now. BR, Mauricio Lin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
