Herbert Poetzl wrote:
To me, one of the keys of Linux's "global optimizations" is being able
to use any memory globally for its most effective purpose, globally
(please ignore highmem :). Let's say I have a 1GB container on a
machine that is at least 100% committed. I mmap() a 1GB file and
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It can be done trivially without performing any IO or swap, yes.
Please give me a rough sketch of how to do so.
Reading sparse files is just one I had in mind. But I'm not very
creative compared to university students doing
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can be done trivially without performing any IO or swap, yes.
Please give me a rough sketch of how to do so.
Reading sparse files is just one I had in mind. But I'm not very
creative compared to university students doing
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
To me, one of the keys of Linux's global optimizations is being able
to use any memory globally for its most effective purpose, globally
(please ignore highmem :). Let's say I have a 1GB container on a
machine that is at least 100% committed. I mmap() a 1GB file and touch
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:41:12AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 04:12 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
> > ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
> > but I/O attacks.
>
> I
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 04:12 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
> ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
> but I/O attacks.
I truly understand your point here. But, I don't think this thought
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
>> ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
>> but I/O attacks.
>>
>> I completely concede that you can DOS the system with I/O if that is
>> not limited as
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
pressure. :)
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
>>>memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
>>>pressure. :) Perhaps we mean
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different things,
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
pressure. :)
Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
but I/O attacks.
I completely concede that you can DOS the system with I/O if that is
not limited as well.
My
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 04:12 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
but I/O attacks.
I truly understand your point here. But, I don't think this thought
exercise
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:41:12AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 04:12 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
but I/O attacks.
I truly
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different things, but we appear to
disagree greatly on
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:19:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_
> > about memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting
> > for memory pressure. :) Perhaps we mean
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:19:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_
about memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting
for memory pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different things, but we appear to
disagree greatly on the
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
> memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
> pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different things, but we appear to
> disagree greatly on the surface.
I
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 11:42 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To me, a process sitting there doing constant reads of 10 pages has the
> > same overhead to the VM as a process sitting there with a 10 page file
> > mmaped, and reading that.
>
> I can see
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 11:42 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To me, a process sitting there doing constant reads of 10 pages has the
same overhead to the VM as a process sitting there with a 10 page file
mmaped, and reading that.
I can see temporarily
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_ about
memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting for memory
pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different things, but we appear to
disagree greatly on the surface.
I think it is
22 matches
Mail list logo
