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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
