On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:24:49AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ross Zwisler
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:01:08AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> [ adding Dave who is working on a blk-mq + dma offload version of the
> >> pmem driver ]
> >>
> >> On Fri, A
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ross Zwisler
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:01:08AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> [ adding Dave who is working on a blk-mq + dma offload version of the
>> pmem driver ]
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:5
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:01:08AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> [ adding Dave who is working on a blk-mq + dma offload version of the
> pmem driver ]
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:54:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> >> Thanks for the
[ adding Dave who is working on a blk-mq + dma offload version of the
pmem driver ]
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:54:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
>> Thanks for the testing. Your testing number is within noise level?
>>
>> I cannot understan
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:54:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:13:35PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:13:15AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Ross,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:13:35PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:13:15AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Ross,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:05:44AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> FYI, for the read side we should use the on-stack bio unconditionally,
> as it will always be a win (or not show up at all).
Think about readahead. Unconditional on-stack bio to read around pages
with faulted address will cause l
On 08/03/2017 03:13 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:13:15AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -060
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:13:15AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > > Dan Williams and
FYI, for the read side we should use the on-stack bio unconditionally,
as it will always be a win (or not show up at all).
[ adding Tim and Ying who have also been looking at swap optimization
and rw_page interactions ]
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> >
Hi Ross,
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
> > > whether the
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
> > whether the rw_page() interface made sense for synchronous memory drivers
> > [1][2]. It's
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:42:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 04:36:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Do you suggest define something special flag(e.g., SWP_INMEMORY)
> > > for in-memory swap to
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:42:06AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 04:36:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Do you suggest define something special flag(e.g., SWP_INMEMORY)
> > for in-memory swap to swap_info_struct when swapon time manually
> > or from bdi_queue_someting
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 04:36:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Do you suggest define something special flag(e.g., SWP_INMEMORY)
> for in-memory swap to swap_info_struct when swapon time manually
> or from bdi_queue_someting automatically?
> And depending the flag of swap_info_struct, use the onstac
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:17:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 07:16:59AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > rw_page's gain is reducing of dynamic allocation in swap path
> > as well as performance gain thorugh avoiding bio allocation.
> > And it would be important in memor
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 07:16:59AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> rw_page's gain is reducing of dynamic allocation in swap path
> as well as performance gain thorugh avoiding bio allocation.
> And it would be important in memory pressure situation.
There is no need for any dynamic allocation when usi
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 07:16:59AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:31:43 -0700 Matthew Wilcox
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > > Dan Willi
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:31:43 -0700 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
> > > whether the
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:31:43 -0700 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
> > whether the rw_page() interface made sense for synchronous memory drivers
> > [1][2]. It's uncle
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
> whether the rw_page() interface made sense for synchronous memory drivers
> [1][2]. It's unclear whether this interface has any performance benefit
> for these d
Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
whether the rw_page() interface made sense for synchronous memory drivers
[1][2]. It's unclear whether this interface has any performance benefit
for these drivers, but as we continue to fix bugs it is clear that it does
have a
23 matches
Mail list logo
