On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see > if anyone else wants to try it. > > Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
We would be very interested in such a feature. We have another hack that shows up to 40% performance improvements. > At the moment the code is a bit ugly, but it won't take much to make it a > completely standalone ~400 line module with just a handful of hooks into > the core mm. So if anyone really wants it, it could be quite realistic to > get into an includable form. Would be great but I am a bit skeptical regarding the locking and the additonal overhead moving back and forth between replications and non replicated page state. > At some point I did take a look at Dave Hansen's page replication patch for > ideas, but didn't get far because he was doing a per-inode scheme and I was > doing per-page. No judgments on which approach is better, but I feel this > per-page patch is quite neat. Definitely looks better. > - Would be nice to transfer master on reclaim. This should be quite easy, > must transfer relevant flags, and only if !PagePrivate (which reclaim > takes care of). Transfer master? Meaning you need to remove the replicated pages? Removing of replicated pages should transfer reference bit? > - Should go nicely with lockless pagecache, but haven't merged them yet. When is that going to happen? Soon I hope? - 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/