Page-based NUMA pagecache replication.
This is a scheme for page replication replicates read-only pagecache pages
opportunistically, at pagecache lookup time (at points where we know the
page is being looked up for read only).
The page will be replicated if it resides on a different node to
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:29:29PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
>
> I've attached another patch that closes one race and fixes a context
> problem [irq/preemption state] in __unreplicate_page_range(). This
> makes the locking even uglier :-(.
>
> I get further with this patch. Boot all the
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:29:29PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
I've attached another patch that closes one race and fixes a context
problem [irq/preemption state] in __unreplicate_page_range(). This
makes the locking even uglier :-(.
I get further with this patch. Boot all the way up
Page-based NUMA pagecache replication.
This is a scheme for page replication replicates read-only pagecache pages
opportunistically, at pagecache lookup time (at points where we know the
page is being looked up for read only).
The page will be replicated if it resides on a different node to
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 01:38 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:32:04PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:09 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
> > > if anyone else
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 01:38 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:32:04PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:09 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi,
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:32:04PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:09 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
> > if anyone else wants to try it.
> >
> > Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> But no arguments, this doesn't aim to do replication of the same virtual
> address. If you did come up with such a scheme, however, you would still
> need a replicated pagecache for it as well.
Well there is always the manual road. Trigger something that
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:00:02AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > This is a scheme for page replication replicates read-only pagecache pages
> > opportunistically, at pagecache lookup time (at points where we know the
> > page is being looked up
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:57:00AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
> > if anyone else wants to try it.
> >
> > Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:09 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
> if anyone else wants to try it.
>
> Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
I've included a small patch
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> This is a scheme for page replication replicates read-only pagecache pages
> opportunistically, at pagecache lookup time (at points where we know the
> page is being looked up for read only).
The problem is that you may only have a single page table. One
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
> if anyone else wants to try it.
>
> Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
We would be very interested in such a feature. We have another hack
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
We would be very interested in such a feature. We have another hack that
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
This is a scheme for page replication replicates read-only pagecache pages
opportunistically, at pagecache lookup time (at points where we know the
page is being looked up for read only).
The problem is that you may only have a single page table. One
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:09 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi,
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
Thanks,
Nick
I've included a small patch below
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:57:00AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:00:02AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
This is a scheme for page replication replicates read-only pagecache pages
opportunistically, at pagecache lookup time (at points where we know the
page is being looked up for read
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
But no arguments, this doesn't aim to do replication of the same virtual
address. If you did come up with such a scheme, however, you would still
need a replicated pagecache for it as well.
Well there is always the manual road. Trigger something that
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:32:04PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 07:09 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi,
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:09:24AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Issues:
> - Not commented. I want to change the interfaces around anyway.
> - Breaks filesystems that use filemap_nopage, but don't call filemap_mkwrite
> (eg. XFS). Fix is trivial for most cases.
> - Haven't tested NUMA yet (only
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:09:24AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Issues:
- Not commented. I want to change the interfaces around anyway.
- Breaks filesystems that use filemap_nopage, but don't call filemap_mkwrite
(eg. XFS). Fix is trivial for most cases.
- Haven't tested NUMA yet (only
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:09:24AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
> if anyone else wants to try it.
(patch against 2.6.20)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
Hi,
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
Thanks,
Nick
--
Page-based NUMA pagecache replication.
This is a scheme for page replication replicates
Hi,
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
Not proposing for inclusion, but I'd be interested in comments or results.
Thanks,
Nick
--
Page-based NUMA pagecache replication.
This is a scheme for page replication replicates
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:09:24AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi,
Just tinkering around with this and got something working, so I'll see
if anyone else wants to try it.
(patch against 2.6.20)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
26 matches
Mail list logo
