On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:03:25AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 12:09 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>>On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> I searched a little bit, the
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:03:25AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/08/2013 12:09 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB
On 01/08/2013 12:09 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access
bit) is
made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't
On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>
>>> I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access
>>> bit) is
>>> made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found
On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access bit) is
made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a patch:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access bit) is
> made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a patch:
>
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:31:21PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 07:14 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >>
> >> We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte
> >> access bit,
> >> we could skip tlb flush for the virtual
Hi Shaohua,
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 16:12 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
Who sets this flag to pte? mmu? tlb?
> we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
> is in tlb and pte access bit
On 01/07/2013 07:14 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>
>> We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte
>> access bit,
>> we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if
>> the pte
>> is in tlb and pte access bit is
On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
is in tlb and pte access bit is unset, when cpu access the page again, cpu will
not set pte's
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
is in tlb and pte access bit is unset, when cpu access the page again, cpu will
not set pte's access bit. So next time page reclaim can
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
is in tlb and pte access bit is unset, when cpu access the page again, cpu will
not set pte's access bit. So next time page reclaim can
On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
is in tlb and pte access bit is unset, when cpu access the page again, cpu will
not set pte's
On 01/07/2013 07:14 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte
access bit,
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if
the pte
is in tlb and pte access bit is unset, when cpu
Hi Shaohua,
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 16:12 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
Who sets this flag to pte? mmu? tlb?
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
is in tlb and pte access bit is
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:31:21PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 07:14 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte
access bit,
we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access bit) is
made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a patch:
On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access bit) is
made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a patch:
On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access
bit) is
made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a
patch:
On 01/08/2013 12:09 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access
bit) is
made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't
20 matches
Mail list logo