From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
wli@holomorphy.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rrebel@whenu.com, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com,
nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] A new entry for /proc
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:41:31 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502282029470.28484@goblin.wat.veritas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3f250c7105022801564a0d0e13@mail.gmail.com>
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.
Your smaps_pte_range is missing pte_unmap?
Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-28 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-06 21:11 [PATCH] A new entry for /proc Mauricio Lin
2005-01-07 4:23 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-07 12:30 ` Roger Luethi
2005-01-08 20:20 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-01-08 21:47 ` Alan Cox
2005-01-10 9:21 ` Edjard Souza Mota
2005-01-10 15:23 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-22 13:13 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-24 8:31 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-24 9:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-24 11:43 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-24 11:52 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-25 15:14 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-28 9:43 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-28 9:56 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-02-28 20:41 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2005-03-01 8:08 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-01 14:17 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-01 15:44 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-02 12:20 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-02 19:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-03-03 7:25 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-03-03 12:48 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-03-03 14:23 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-10 14:35 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-14 22:46 ` Mauricio Lin
[not found] ` <20050114154209.6b712e55.akpm@osdl.org>
2005-01-17 18:03 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-17 19:02 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-17 17:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-01-17 21:27 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-01-17 21:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
2005-01-18 1:07 ` Nick Piggin
2005-01-19 12:59 ` Nick Piggin
2005-01-24 22:14 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-04-29 18:36 ` Mauricio Lin
2005-04-30 1:25 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-24 18:56 Albert Cahalan
2005-03-01 14:32 ` Mauricio Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0502282029470.28484@goblin.wat.veritas.com \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=mauriciolin@gmail.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=rrebel@whenu.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).