Re: [PATCH] allow vma merging with mlock et. al.

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:38:06PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> I don't have a good sampling of applications.  The one's I've used are
> temporal like gpg, or they mlockall the whole thing and never look back.
> But I did a quick benchmark since I was curious, a simple loop of a
> million lock/unlock cycles of a page that could trigger a merge:
> 
> vanilla
> (no merge): 659706 usecs
> 
> patched
> (merge):    3567020 usecs
> 
> Heh, I was surprised to see it that much slower.

The object of the merge is to save memory, and to reduce the size of the
rbtree that might payoff during other operations (with a smaller tree,
lookups will be faster too). If you only measure the time of creating
and removing a mapping then it should be normal that you see a slowdown
since merging involves more work than non-merging. The payoff is
supposed to be in the other operations.

The reason mlock doesn't merge is that nobody asked for it yet, but it
was originally supposed to merge too (I stopped at mremap since mlock
wasn't high prio to fixup). But the long term plan was to eventually add
merging to mlock too and it's good that you're optimizing it now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/