On 08/26/2015 09:20 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 25-08-15 15:03:00, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
Would you drop your objections to the VMA flag if I drop the portions of
the patch that expose it to userspace?
The rework to not use the VMA flag is pretty sizeable and is much more
ugly IMO. I
On Tue 25-08-15 15:03:00, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
> Would you drop your objections to the VMA flag if I drop the portions of
> the patch that expose it to userspace?
>
> The rework to not use the VMA flag is pretty sizeable and is much more
> ugly IMO. I know that you are not wild about using
On Tue 25-08-15 15:03:00, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
Would you drop your objections to the VMA flag if I drop the portions of
the patch that expose it to userspace?
The rework to not use the VMA flag is pretty sizeable and is much more
ugly IMO. I know that you are not wild about using bit
On 08/26/2015 09:20 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 25-08-15 15:03:00, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
Would you drop your objections to the VMA flag if I drop the portions of
the patch that expose it to userspace?
The rework to not use the VMA flag is pretty sizeable and is much more
ugly IMO. I
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 25-08-15 10:29:02, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Considering the current behavior I do not thing it would be terrible
> > > thing to do what Konstantin was suggesting and populate only the full
> >
On Tue 25-08-15 10:29:02, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Considering the current behavior I do not thing it would be terrible
> > thing to do what Konstantin was suggesting and populate only the full
> > ranges in a best effort mode (it is done so anyway)
On Tue 25-08-15 15:55:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 03:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >So what we have as a result is that partially populated ranges are
> >preserved and fully populated ones work in the best effort mode the same
> >way as they are now.
> >
> >Does that sound at
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
> [...]
> > I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
> > see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
> > the following:
> >
> > addr = mmap(len,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
> [...]
>> I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
>> see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
>> the following:
>>
>> addr =
On 08/25/2015 03:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS,
On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
> I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
> see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
> the following:
>
> addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS, ...);
> mlock(addr, len,
On 08/25/2015 03:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS,
On Tue 25-08-15 15:55:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/25/2015 03:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
So what we have as a result is that partially populated ranges are
preserved and fully populated ones work in the best effort mode the same
way as they are now.
Does that sound at least
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr = mmap(len,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Michal Hocko mho...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr =
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 25-08-15 10:29:02, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Considering the current behavior I do not thing it would be terrible
thing to do what Konstantin was suggesting and populate only the full
ranges in
On Tue 25-08-15 10:29:02, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Considering the current behavior I do not thing it would be terrible
thing to do what Konstantin was suggesting and populate only the full
ranges in a best effort mode (it is done so anyway) and
On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS, ...);
mlock(addr, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> >> > On
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, Aug
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> >>On
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>> On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> >On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >>On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>
> I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way,
On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
>>> see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
>>> the following:
>>>
>>>
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS, ...);
mlock(addr, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> On Thu 20-08-15 13:03:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> > > [...]
>> > > > The group which asked
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS, ...);
mlock(addr, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
the following:
addr
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I
On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 08/24/2015 12:17 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/24/2015 03:50 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vlastimil Babka
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric B
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 20-08-15 13:03:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
The group which asked for
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Eric B Munson emun...@akamai.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Konstantin
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-08-15 13:03:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The group which asked for this feature here
> > > > wants the ability to distinguish
On Thu 20-08-15 13:03:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The group which asked for this feature here
> > > wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and LOCKONFAULT regions
> > > and
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 20-08-15 13:03:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
The group which asked for this feature here
wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and
On Thu 20-08-15 13:03:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
The group which asked for this feature here
wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and LOCKONFAULT regions
and without the VMA flag
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
> [...]
> > The group which asked for this feature here
> > wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and LOCKONFAULT regions
> > and without the VMA flag there isn't a way to do that.
>
> Could you
On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
> The group which asked for this feature here
> wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and LOCKONFAULT regions
> and without the VMA flag there isn't a way to do that.
Could you be more specific on why this is needed?
> Do we know
On 08/19/2015 11:33 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 09-08-15 01:22:53, Eric B Munson wrote:
I do not like this very much to be honest. We have only few bits
left there and it seems this is not really necessary. I thought that
LOCKONFAULT acts as a
On 08/19/2015 11:33 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 09-08-15 01:22:53, Eric B Munson wrote:
I do not like this very much to be honest. We have only few bits
left there and it seems this is not really necessary. I thought that
LOCKONFAULT acts as a
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
The group which asked for this feature here
wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and LOCKONFAULT regions
and without the VMA flag there isn't a way to do that.
Could you be more
On Wed 19-08-15 17:33:45, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
The group which asked for this feature here
wants the ability to distinguish between LOCKED and LOCKONFAULT regions
and without the VMA flag there isn't a way to do that.
Could you be more specific on why this is needed?
Do we know that
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 09-08-15 01:22:53, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
> > working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
> > used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
> >
>
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 09-08-15 01:22:53, Eric B Munson wrote:
The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
For the
On Sun 09-08-15 01:22:53, Eric B Munson wrote:
> The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
> working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
> used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
>
> For the example of a large file, this is the usage
On Sun 09-08-15 01:22:53, Eric B Munson wrote:
The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
For the example of a large file, this is the usage
The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
For the example of a large file, this is the usage pattern for a large
statical language model (probably
The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
For the example of a large file, this is the usage pattern for a large
statical language model (probably
56 matches
Mail list logo
