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 kn
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 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 le
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, M
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 = mmap(
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, 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:
> >> >
> >> >> O
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 08/2
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 08/24/20
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, but
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 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 without
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
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 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 modif
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 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 pa
27 matches
Mail list logo
