This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Seeking consensus on BZ 16734
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Daniel Colascione <dancol at dancol dot org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:25:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: Seeking consensus on BZ 16734
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CALoOobP_7jpdZUqSFmKCTFds6t8TTdnxfOfg2jCTr_TjvU+t2w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrp6jCuPe4ZX-kdHdO_4_k-Dpf7ha-PxtCJmJLnL3K0-A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CALoOobMZFx7c+i0GCFRg1-1Z=2H3xDDH8+td-D=0k9muAFvPAA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150202051410 dot GG23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <54DB5A67 dot 309 at redhat dot com> <20150211140240 dot GW23507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <54DB62C6 dot 4070409 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:10:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 03:02 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:34:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 02/02/2015 06:14 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 08:46:06PM -0800, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 8:09 PM, H.J. Lu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Can we just do it?
> >>>>> Do we have any current performance data on this?
> >>>> I am not sure what performance data you want.
> >>>> The application CPU will go up (calloc has to zero out space), kernel
> >>>> CPU will go down (kernel would not have to zero out the same space).
> >>>> It's clear that calloc()ing 8K is much cheaper than mmap()ing,
> >>>> especially when there are 100s of threads.
> >>> The original idea seems to be some misguided idea that read/write
> >>> should perform better with a page-aligned buffer.
> >> Historically, some Linux VFS read implementations could transfer the
> >> data by mapping full pages (/dev/zero was one of them). I think they
> >> have been gone for a long time because you need to copy lots and lots of
> >> data (certainly more than 8K) before you lose against remapping and the
> >> cache invalidation that comes with it.
> > This seems like it would break horribly when the destination is
> > anything but anonymous memory (presumably they checked that) and would
> > perform atrociously bad (cost of locking vmas, possible TLB
> > invalidation, etc.) especially when the size of the read is at most a
> > few pages (which is the case for FILE buffers under normal usage). So
> > it seems like, even if such a hack were possible, it was terribly
> > misguided and would have pessimized performance for stdio.
> I don't doubt that at all. But perhaps that was the reason to
> page-align the buffer.
> You can see the details here:
> (Curiously, this introduced a regression, fixed in
Can we move with original patch? Anyway if there is any need for page
alignment aligned_alloc (4096, 8192) should be faster as it could use