On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:20:47AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay
> From a user perspective, it doesn't depend on swap. It's just slower
> without swap because it does what MADV_DONTNEED does. The current
> implementation can be dropped in where MADV_DONTNEED was previously used.
It just wouldn't replace existing layers of purging logic until that
edge case is
>>> It probably makes sense to stop thinking about them as anonymous pages
>>> entirely at this point when it comes to aging. They're really not. The
>>> LRU lists are split to differentiate access patterns and cost of page
>>> stealing (and restoring). From that angle, MADV_FREE pages really have
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:48:17PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > Even if we're wrong about the aging of those MADV_FREE pages, their
> > contents are invalidated; they can be discarded freely, and restoring
> > them is a mere GFP_ZERO allocation. All other anonymous pages have to
> > be written
> Even if we're wrong about the aging of those MADV_FREE pages, their
> contents are invalidated; they can be discarded freely, and restoring
> them is a mere GFP_ZERO allocation. All other anonymous pages have to
> be written to disk, and potentially be read back.
>
> [ Arguably, MADV_FREE pages
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
> patch moves
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> > > pressure and we use
On Tue 03-11-15 09:52:23, Minchan Kim wrote:
[...]
> I believe adding new LRU list would be controversial(ie, not trivial)
> for maintainer POV even though code wouldn't be complicated.
> So, I want to see problems in *real practice*, not any theoritical
> test program before diving into that.
>
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:48:17PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > Even if we're wrong about the aging of those MADV_FREE pages, their
> > contents are invalidated; they can be discarded freely, and restoring
> > them is a mere GFP_ZERO allocation. All other anonymous pages have to
> > be written
> Even if we're wrong about the aging of those MADV_FREE pages, their
> contents are invalidated; they can be discarded freely, and restoring
> them is a mere GFP_ZERO allocation. All other anonymous pages have to
> be written to disk, and potentially be read back.
>
> [ Arguably, MADV_FREE pages
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
> patch moves
> From a user perspective, it doesn't depend on swap. It's just slower
> without swap because it does what MADV_DONTNEED does. The current
> implementation can be dropped in where MADV_DONTNEED was previously used.
It just wouldn't replace existing layers of purging logic until that
edge case is
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:20:47AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM
>>> It probably makes sense to stop thinking about them as anonymous pages
>>> entirely at this point when it comes to aging. They're really not. The
>>> LRU lists are split to differentiate access patterns and cost of page
>>> stealing (and restoring). From that angle, MADV_FREE pages really have
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> > > pressure and we use
On Tue 03-11-15 09:52:23, Minchan Kim wrote:
[...]
> I believe adding new LRU list would be controversial(ie, not trivial)
> for maintainer POV even though code wouldn't be complicated.
> So, I want to see problems in *real practice*, not any theoritical
> test program before diving into that.
>
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> > pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> > so there is no
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> > pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> > so there is no
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
> patch moves
MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
patch moves them to inactive LRU list's head.
This means that MADV_FREE-ed pages
MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
patch moves them to inactive LRU list's head.
This means that MADV_FREE-ed pages
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
> patch moves
26 matches
Mail list logo
