On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I am seriously tempted to switch to pure software dirty bits by using
> > page protection for writable but clean pages. The worry is the number of
> > additional protection faults we would get. But as we do software dirty
> >
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
I am seriously tempted to switch to pure software dirty bits by using
page protection for writable but clean pages. The worry is the number of
additional protection faults we would get. But as we do software
On Tue 09-10-12 19:19:09, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > But here's where I think the problem is. You're assuming that all
> > > filesystems go the same mapping_cap_account_writeback_dirty() (yeah,
> > > there's no such function, just a confusing maze of three)
On Tue 09-10-12 19:19:09, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
snip a lot
But here's where I think the problem is. You're assuming that all
filesystems go the same mapping_cap_account_writeback_dirty() (yeah,
there's no such function, just a confusing maze of three)
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:00 +1100
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:19:09PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On s390 any write to a
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> But perhaps these machines aren't much into heavy swapping. Now,
> if Martin would send me a nice little zSeries netbook for Xmas,
> I could then test that end of it myself ;)
Are you sure about that? The electricity cost alone
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
But perhaps these machines aren't much into heavy swapping. Now,
if Martin would send me a nice little zSeries netbook for Xmas,
I could then test that end of it myself ;)
Are you sure about that? The electricity
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:56:00 +1100
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:19:09PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > > A separate worry came to mind as I thought about your patch: where
> > > in page migration is s390's dirty storage key migrated
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:19:09PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > > > specific
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 09-10-12 19:19:09, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets
On Tue 09-10-12 19:19:09, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > > > specific page dirty bit.
On Tue 09-10-12 19:19:09, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 09-10-12 19:19:09, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets
architecture
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:19:09PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
A separate worry came to mind as I thought about your patch: where
in page migration is s390's dirty storage key migrated
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > > specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard
> > > write, HW
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > > specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:24:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > So, if I'm understanding right, with this change s390 would be in danger
> > of discarding shm, and mmap'ed tmpfs and ramfs pages - whereas pages
> > written with the write system call
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write,
> > HW
> > dirty bit gets set and when we later map
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> > specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write,
> > HW
> > dirty bit gets set and when
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:24:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > CC: Mel Gorman
>
> and I'm grateful to Mel's ack for reawakening me to it...
>
> > CC: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara
>
> but I think it's wrong.
>
Dang.
> > ---
> > mm/rmap.c | 16
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:24:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
SNIP
CC: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
and I'm grateful to Mel's ack for reawakening me to it...
CC: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara j...@suse.cz
but I think it's wrong.
Dang.
---
mm/rmap.c |
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write,
HW
dirty bit gets set
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write,
HW
dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:24:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
So, if I'm understanding right, with this change s390 would be in danger
of discarding shm, and mmap'ed tmpfs and ramfs pages - whereas pages
written with the write system call would
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 08-10-12 21:24:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard
write, HW
dirty bit
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
> dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page,
> page_remove_rmap()
> finds the dirty bit
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
> specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
> dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page,
> page_remove_rmap()
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page,
page_remove_rmap()
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page,
page_remove_rmap()
finds the dirty bit and
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page, page_remove_rmap()
finds the dirty bit and calls set_page_dirty().
Dirtying of a page
On s390 any write to a page (even from kernel itself) sets architecture
specific page dirty bit. Thus when a page is written to via standard write, HW
dirty bit gets set and when we later map and unmap the page, page_remove_rmap()
finds the dirty bit and calls set_page_dirty().
Dirtying of a page
34 matches
Mail list logo
