On Tuesday 20 March 2007 07:00, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:44:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 March 2007 03:50, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > > Yes, I believe that is the case, however I wonder if that is going
> > > > > to be a problem for you to distinguish
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 07:00, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:44:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Sunday 18 March 2007 03:50, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yes, I believe that is the case, however I wonder if that is going
to be a problem for you to distinguish between write
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:44:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Sunday 18 March 2007 03:50, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I believe that is the case, however I wonder if that is going to
> > > > be a problem for you to distinguish between write faults for clean
> > > > writable ptes,
On Sunday 18 March 2007 03:50, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:17:00PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:50:10AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Yes, that should be the case. So would this mean that nonlinear protections
> don't work on regular files? I guess that's OK if Oracle and UML both use
> tmpfs/shm?
Sometimes ramfs is also used in the Oracle case. I presume that's
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:50:10AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yes, that should be the case. So would this mean that nonlinear protections
don't work on regular files? I guess that's OK if Oracle and UML both use
tmpfs/shm?
Sometimes ramfs is also used in the Oracle case. I presume that's even
On Sunday 18 March 2007 03:50, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:17:00PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:44:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Sunday 18 March 2007 03:50, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yes, I believe that is the case, however I wonder if that is going to
be a problem for you to distinguish between write faults for clean
writable ptes, and write faults
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:50:10AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Yes, that should be the case. So would this mean that nonlinear protections
> don't work on regular files? I guess that's OK if Oracle and UML both use
> tmpfs/shm?
It's OK for UML.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:50:10AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yes, that should be the case. So would this mean that nonlinear protections
don't work on regular files? I guess that's OK if Oracle and UML both use
tmpfs/shm?
It's OK for UML.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:17:00PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML can live
> > > > with that as well, then I think it might
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML can live
with that as well, then I think it might be a good
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:17:00PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 02:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML can live with
> > > that as well, then I think it might be a good option.
> >
> > Oh, hmm if you can
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:20AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > Depending on whether anyone wants it, and
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:20AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML can live with
that as well, then I think it might be a good option.
Oh, hmm if you can truncate these
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 10:44, Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
> > could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
> > much less intrusive.
> > For
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 10:44, Bill Irwin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
much less intrusive.
For example, if
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:52:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well I don't think UML uses nonlinear yet anyway, does it? Can they
> > make do with restricting nonlinear to mlocked vmas, I wonder? Probably
> > not.
>
> I think it does, but lets ask, Jeff?
Nope, UML needs to be able to
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:34:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > True. We could even guesstimate the nonlinear dirty pages by subtracting
> > the result of page_mkclean() from page_mapcount() and force an
> > msync(MS_ASYNC) on said
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > msync() might never get called and then we're back with the old
> > > behaviour where we can surprise the VM with a ton of dirty pages.
> >
> > But we're root. With your patch, root *can't* do nonlinear writeback
> > well.
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> True. We could even guesstimate the nonlinear dirty pages by subtracting
> the result of page_mkclean() from page_mapcount() and force an
> msync(MS_ASYNC) on said mapping (or all (nonlinear) mappings of the
> related file) when some
> > Well I don't think UML uses nonlinear yet anyway, does it? Can they
> > make do with restricting nonlinear to mlocked vmas, I wonder? Probably
> > not.
>
> I think it does, but lets ask, Jeff?
Looks like it doesn't:
$ grep -r remap_file_pages arch/um/
$
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:19:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:08 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > > > The thing is, I don't think anybody who uses these things cares
> > > > > about any of the 'problems' you want to fix, do they? We are
> > > > > interested in
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:36 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:19:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:08 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > > > The thing is, I don't think anybody who uses these things cares
> > > > > about any of the 'problems' you
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:19:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:08 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > > The thing is, I don't think anybody who uses these things cares
> > > > about any of the 'problems' you want to fix, do they? We are
> > > > interested in dirty pages
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 14:08 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > The thing is, I don't think anybody who uses these things cares
> > > about any of the 'problems' you want to fix, do they? We are
> > > interested in dirty pages only for the correctness issue, rather
> > > than performance. Same as
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:41:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 13:17 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > Tracking these ranges on a per-vma basis would avoid taking the mm wide
> > > mmap_sem and so would be cheaper than regular vmas.
> > >
> > > Would that still be too
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 13:17 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Tracking these ranges on a per-vma basis would avoid taking the mm wide
> > mmap_sem and so would be cheaper than regular vmas.
> >
> > Would that still be too expensive?
>
> Well you can today remap N pages in a file, arbitrarily for
>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:22:24AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Well, now they don't, but it could be done or even exploited as a DoS.
>
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > But so could nonlinear
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Well, now they don't, but it could be done or even exploited as a DoS.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> But so could nonlinear page reclaim. I think we need to restrict nonlinear
> mappings to root if
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:48:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:00 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:38 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > There are real users who want
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 12:00 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:38 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > > > There are real users who want these fast, though.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, why don't we have a tree per
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:47:42AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:38 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > > There are real users who want these fast, though.
> > >
> > > Yeah, why don't we have a tree per nonlinear vma to find these pages?
> > >
> > > wli mentions shadow
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:38 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > There are real users who want these fast, though.
> >
> > Yeah, why don't we have a tree per nonlinear vma to find these pages?
> >
> > wli mentions shadow page tables..
>
> We could do something more efficient, but I thought that
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:17 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > > NOPAGE_REFAULT is removed. This should be implemented with ->fault, and
> > > > no users have hit mainline yet.
> > >
> > > Did benh agree with that?
> >
>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:24:45AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:21 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:13:20AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > *sigh* yes was looking at all that code, thats gonna be darn slow
> > > > though, but I'll whip up a
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:21 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:13:20AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > *sigh* yes was looking at all that code, thats gonna be darn slow
> > > though, but I'll whip up a patch.
> >
> > Well, if it's going to be darn slow, maybe it's better to
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:13:20AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > *sigh* yes was looking at all that code, thats gonna be darn slow
> > though, but I'll whip up a patch.
>
> Well, if it's going to be darn slow, maybe it's better to go with
> mingo's plan on emulating nonlinear vmas with linear
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:05:48AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > > NOPAGE_REFAULT is removed. This should be implemented with ->fault, and
> > > no users have hit mainline yet.
> >
> > Did benh agree with that?
>
> I won't use NOPAGE_REFAULT, I use NOPFN_REFAULT and that has hit
>
> *sigh* yes was looking at all that code, thats gonna be darn slow
> though, but I'll whip up a patch.
Well, if it's going to be darn slow, maybe it's better to go with
mingo's plan on emulating nonlinear vmas with linear ones. That'll be
darn slow as well, but at least it will be much less
> > NOPAGE_REFAULT is removed. This should be implemented with ->fault, and
> > no users have hit mainline yet.
>
> Did benh agree with that?
I won't use NOPAGE_REFAULT, I use NOPFN_REFAULT and that has hit
mainline. I will switch to ->fault when I have time to adapt the code,
in the meantime,
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:29:03 -0800 Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guess what major real-life application not only uses nonlinear daily
>> but would even be very happy to see it extended with non-vma-creating
>> protections and more?
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:39:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:04 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:45:03AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Can recollect as much, I modelled it after page_referenced() and can't
> > > find any VM_NONLINEAR
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:45:03AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Can recollect as much, I modelled it after page_referenced() and can't
> > find any VM_NONLINEAR specific code in there either.
> >
> > Will have a hard look,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:20AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
> > > could emulate the old
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> ok. What do you think about the sys_remap_file_pages_prot() thing that
>>> Paolo has done in a nicely split up form - does that complicate things
>>> in any fundamental way? That is what is useful to UML.
* Bill Irwin <[EMAIL
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
> > thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
> > with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:20AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
> > could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
> > much less intrusive.
>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
> could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
> much less intrusive.
> For example, if we can operate only on MAP_ANONYMOUS memory and
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 01:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > > > > non-linear mappings
> > >
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:26:38AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > msync breakage is bad, but otherwise I don't know that we care about
> > dirty page writeout efficiency.
>
> Well. We made so many changes to
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:29:03 -0800 Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing maintainance
> >> pain, we could internally implement/emulate sys_remap_file_pages()
* Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
> >> thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
> >> with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm that doesn't cost much.
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 01:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > > > non-linear mappings
> > >
> > > It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
>> thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
>> with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm that doesn't cost much.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Ingo
> > But I think we discovered that those msync changes are bogus anyway
> > becuase there is a small race window where pte could be dirtied without
> > page being set dirty?
>
> Dunno, I don't recall that. We dirty the page before the pte...
That's the one I just submitted a fix for ;)
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing maintainance
>> pain, we could internally implement/emulate sys_remap_file_pages() via a
>> call to mremap() and essentially deprecate it, without breaking the
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:07:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > > > >
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:53:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing
> > > maintainance pain, we could internally implement/emulate
> > > sys_remap_file_pages() via a call to mremap() and
> >
> > Look in page_mkclean(). Where does it handle non-linear mappings?
> >
>
> OK, I'd forgotten about that. It won't break dirty memory accounting,
> but it'll potentially break dirty memory balancing.
>
> If we have the wrong page (due to nonlinear), page_check_address() will
> fail and
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
> thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
> with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm that doesn't cost much.
ok. What do you think about the
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:07:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > > > non-linear mappings
> > >
> > > It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:59:44AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Apart from a handful of trivial if (pte_file()) cases throughout mm/,
> our maintainance burden basically now amounts to the following patch.
> Even the rmap.c change looks bigger than it is because I split out
> the nonlinear
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > > non-linear mappings
> >
> > It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
> > other do they?
>
> Look in page_mkclean(). Where does
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:27:55AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then 4,5,6 is the fault/nonlinear rewrite, take it or leave it. I
> > thought you would have liked the patches...
>
> btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing
> > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > non-linear mappings
>
> It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
> other do they?
Look in page_mkclean(). Where does it handle non-linear mappings?
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing
> > maintainance pain, we could internally implement/emulate
> > sys_remap_file_pages() via a call to mremap() and essentially
> > deprecate it, without breaking the ABI - and remove all
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:38:34 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> non-linear mappings
It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
other do they?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> > If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all
> > the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders
> > are removed in patch 6/6).
> >
> > If you look at the patchset as a whole, it removes about 250 lines,
> > mostly of (non trivial) duplicated
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all
> > the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders
> > are removed in patch
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all
> the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders
> are removed in patch 6/6).
>
> If you look at the patchset as a whole, it removes about 250 lines,
>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:08:53AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:51:01PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > This patch seems to churn things around an awful lot for minimal benefit.
>
> Well it fixes the whole design of the nonlinear fault path.
If it doesn't look very
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:08:53AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 10:51:01PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch seems to churn things around an awful lot for minimal benefit.
Well it fixes the whole design of the nonlinear fault path.
If it doesn't look very
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all
the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders
are removed in patch 6/6).
If you look at the patchset as a whole, it removes about 250 lines,
mostly of
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all
the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders
are removed in patch 6/6).
If
If it doesn't look very impressive, it could be because it leaves all
the old crud around for backwards compatibility (the worst offenders
are removed in patch 6/6).
If you look at the patchset as a whole, it removes about 250 lines,
mostly of (non trivial) duplicated code in
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:38:34 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
other do they?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
other do they?
Look in page_mkclean(). Where does it handle non-linear mappings?
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing
maintainance pain, we could internally implement/emulate
sys_remap_file_pages() via a call to mremap() and essentially
deprecate it, without breaking the ABI - and remove all the
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:27:55AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then 4,5,6 is the fault/nonlinear rewrite, take it or leave it. I
thought you would have liked the patches...
btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing maintainance
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
other do they?
Look in page_mkclean(). Where does it handle
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:59:44AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Apart from a handful of trivial if (pte_file()) cases throughout mm/,
our maintainance burden basically now amounts to the following patch.
Even the rmap.c change looks bigger than it is because I split out
the nonlinear unmapping
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:07:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm that doesn't cost much.
ok. What do you think about the
Look in page_mkclean(). Where does it handle non-linear mappings?
OK, I'd forgotten about that. It won't break dirty memory accounting,
but it'll potentially break dirty memory balancing.
If we have the wrong page (due to nonlinear), page_check_address() will
fail and we'll leave
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:07:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:53:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing
maintainance pain, we could internally implement/emulate
sys_remap_file_pages() via a call to mremap() and essentially
But I think we discovered that those msync changes are bogus anyway
becuase there is a small race window where pte could be dirtied without
page being set dirty?
Dunno, I don't recall that. We dirty the page before the pte...
That's the one I just submitted a fix for ;)
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing maintainance
pain, we could internally implement/emulate sys_remap_file_pages() via a
call to mremap() and essentially deprecate it, without breaking the ABI
-
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm that doesn't cost much.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 01:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
It doesn't? Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
other do
* Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After these patches, I don't think there is too much burden. The main
thing left really is just the objrmap stuff, but that is just handled
with a minimal 'dumb' algorithm that doesn't cost much.
On Wed, Mar
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:26:38AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
msync breakage is bad, but otherwise I don't know that we care about
dirty page writeout efficiency.
Well. We made so many changes to support the
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:29:03 -0800 Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:27:55 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw., if we decide that nonlinear isnt worth the continuing maintainance
pain, we could internally implement/emulate sys_remap_file_pages() via a
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
much less intrusive.
For example, if we can operate only on MAP_ANONYMOUS memory and specify
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 01:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
non-linear mappings
It doesn't?
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:20AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
much less intrusive.
For
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
