On 05/30/2014 10:24 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 05/30/2014 09:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:52 AM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>> That said, it's still likely a non-production option due to the page
>>>> table games we'd have to play at fork/clone time.
>>>
>>> Still, seems much more tractable.
>>
>> We might be able to make it more attractive by having a small
>> front-end cache of the 16kB allocations with the second page unmapped.
>> That would at least capture the common "lots of short-lived processes"
>> case without having to do kernel page table work.
>
> If we want to use 4k mappings, we'd need to move the stack over to using
> vmalloc() (or at least be out of the linear mapping) to avoid breaking
> up the linear map's page tables too much. Doing that, we'd actually not
> _have_ to worry about fragmentation, and we could actually utilize the
> per-cpu-pageset code since we'd could be back to using order-0 pages.
> So it's at least not all a loss. Although, I do remember playing with
> 4k stacks back in the 32-bit days and not getting much of a win with it.
>
> We'd definitely that cache, if for no other reason than the vmalloc/vmap
> code as-is isn't super-scalable.
>
I don't think we want to use 4K mappings for production...
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
