On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:23:28 +0100, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:06:23 -0700, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:50:26 +0100, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > wrote: > > Sure, it's permitted, so ideally we'd detect this abuse and fall back to > > the slow path, but we need a cheap check which takes the slow path, > > perhaps pessimistically. > > If we prefault every page, then we only hit the slow path under system > load combined or severe memory pressure. I don't think that is too bad a > compromise. > > I can stick some counters in there and find out what the impact actually > is.
Cool. I've separately posted a query to lkml asking if the existing fault_in_pages_writeable/fault_in_pages_readable should be fixed - that looks like it will provide a performance boost for filesystem reads larger than two pages. -- keith.pack...@intel.com
pgpR0vVKd5h1B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
