Re: missing madvise functionality

[Nick Piggin]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Cool. According to my thinking, madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) even in today's
> > kernels using down_write(mmap_sem) for MADV_DONTNEED is better than
> > mmap/mprotect, which have more fundamental locking requirements, more
> > overhead and no benefits (except debugging, I suppose).
>
>
> It's a tiny bit faster, see
>
>   http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dontneed.png
>
> I just ran it once so the graph is not smooth.  This is on a UP dual
> core machine.  Maybe tomorrow I'll turn on the big 4p machine.

Hmm, I saw an improvement, but that was just on a raw syscall test
with a single page chunk. Real-world use I guess will get progressively
less dramatic as other overheads start being introduced.

Multi-thread performance probably won't get a whole lot better (it does
eliminate 1 down_write(mmap_sem), but one remains) until you use my
madvise patch.


> I would have to see dramatically different results on the big machine to
> make me change the libc code.  The reason is that there is a big drawback.
>
> So far, when we allocate a new arena, we allocate address space with
> PROT_NONE and only when we need memory the protection is changed to
> PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE.  This is the advantage of catching wild pointer
> accesses.

Sure, yes. And I guess you'd always want to keep that options around as
a debugging aid.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/