On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 10:26:51AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> b) we understand why the below simple modification crashes i386.
This doesn't crash i386 in qemu here on a port of the quicklist patches
to 2.6.21-rc5-mm2. I suppose I'll have to dump it on some real hardware
to see if I can reproduc
From: William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:06:24 -0700
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 10:26:51AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > b) we understand why the below simple modification crashes i386.
>
> Full eager zeroing patches not dependent on quicklist code don't crash,
>
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Not that clameter really needs my help, but I agree with his position
> on several fronts, and advocate accordingly, so here is where I'm at.
Yes thank you. I386 is not my field, I have no interest per se in
improving i386 performance and witho
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 10:26:51AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> a) it has been demonstrated that this patch is superior to simply removing
>the quicklists and
Not that clameter really needs my help, but I agree with his position
on several fronts, and advocate accordingly, so here is where I'
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Here are the results of aim9 tests on x86_64. There are so
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > After your patches, x86_64 is using a common quicklist allocator for puds,
> > pmds and pgds and continues to use get_zeroed_page() for ptes.
>
> x86_64 should be using quicklists for all ptes after this patch. I did not
> convert pte_free() sinc
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here are the results of aim9 tests on x86_64. There are some minor
> > performance
> > improvements and some fluctuations.
>
> There are a lot of numbers t
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Here are the results of aim9 tests on x86_64. There are some minor
> performance
> improvements and some fluctuations.
There are a lot of numbers there - what do they tell us?
> 2.6.21-rc4 bare
> 2.6.21-rc
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:39:24 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > but it crashes early in the page allocator (i386) and I don't see why. It
> > makes me wonder if we have a use-after-free which is hidden by the presence
> > of the quicklist buffering or somet
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:48:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my
>>> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate
>>> quicklist allocators into one common implementation.
>>> In an attempt to
Here are the results of aim9 tests on x86_64. There are some minor performance
improvements and some fluctuations. Page size is only a fourth of that on
ia64 so the resulting benefit is less in terms of saved cacheline fetches.
The benefit is also likely higher on i386 because it can fit double
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > About 40% on fork+exit. See
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-ia64&m=110942798406005&w=2
> >
>
> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my
> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> [... patch changing allocator alloc()/free() to bare page allocations ...]
> > but it crashes early in the page allocator (i386) and I don't see why. It
> > makes me wonder if we have a use-after-free which is hidden by the presence
> > of the q
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:48:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my
>> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate
>> quicklist allocators into one common implementation.
>> In an attempt to answ
Andrew Morton wrote:
but it crashes early in the page allocator (i386) and I don't see why. It
makes me wonder if we have a use-after-free which is hidden by the presence
of the quicklist buffering or something.
Does CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC catch it?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant mes
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:48:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my
> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate
> quicklist allocators into one common implementation.
> In an attempt to answer m
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:48:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my
> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate
> quicklist allocators into one common implementation.
> In an attempt to answer m
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. Proven code from the IA64 arch.
> > >
> > > The meth
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. Proven code from the IA64 arch.
> >
> > The method used here has been fine tuned for years and
> > is NUMA aware. It is based on the knowledge tha
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1. Proven code from the IA64 arch.
>
> The method used here has been fine tuned for years and
> is NUMA aware. It is based on the knowledge that accesses
> to page table pages are sparse in
20 matches
Mail list logo
