On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 11:33 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> > The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
>>> > mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
>>> >
>>> >
On 07/23/2014 11:33 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> > The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
>> > mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
>> >
>> > On read page fault, if filesystem provides ->map_pages(),
On 07/24/2014 02:53 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> On 07/24/14 07:33, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> >> The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
>>> >> mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
>>> >>
>>> >> On
On 07/24/14 07:33, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
>> mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
>>
>> On read page fault, if filesystem provides ->map_pages(), we try to map
On 07/24/14 07:33, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On read page fault, if filesystem provides -map_pages(), we try to map
up to
On 07/24/2014 02:53 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
On 07/24/14 07:33, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On read page fault, if
On 07/23/2014 11:33 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On read page fault, if filesystem provides -map_pages(), we try to map
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 07/23/2014 11:33 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
> mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
>
> On read page fault, if filesystem provides ->map_pages(), we try to map
> up to FAULT_AROUND_PAGES pages around page
On 02/27/2014 02:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On read page fault, if filesystem provides -map_pages(), we try to map
up to FAULT_AROUND_PAGES pages around page fault
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:34:15 +1030 Rusty Russell wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:53:46 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> > wrote:
> >> +
> >> +void do_set_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> >> + struct page *page, pte_t *pte, bool write,
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:34:15 +1030 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org writes:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:53:46 +0200 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
+
+void do_set_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long
Andrew Morton writes:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:53:46 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>> +
>> +void do_set_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>> +struct page *page, pte_t *pte, bool write, bool anon);
>> #endif
>>
>> /*
>
> lguest made a dubious naming
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org writes:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:53:46 +0200 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
+
+void do_set_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
+struct page *page, pte_t *pte, bool write, bool anon);
#endif
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:16:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:53:46 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
> > mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
> >
> > On read page fault, if
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:16:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:53:46 +0200 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 14:34 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> The question is really whether or not we ever access the mapping that we
> faulted around, though. If we never access it, then the cost (however
> small it was) is a loss. That's the mechanism that I'd expect causes
> Kirill's numbers to
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 14:34 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
The question is really whether or not we ever access the mapping that we
faulted around, though. If we never access it, then the cost (however
small it was) is a loss. That's the mechanism that I'd expect causes
Kirill's numbers to go
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:34:55PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Kirill's git test suite runs did show that it _can_ hurt in some cases.
And see last use-case for how much it can hurt. :)
It shouldn't differs much for the same *number* of pages between [u]archs
unless setup of the pte is
On 02/27/2014 02:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Dave Hansen
> wrote:
>>
>> Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a
>> FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4. That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example.
>
> Actually, I'd expect that they won't
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:59:59 -0800 Dave Hansen
wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4
> > +#define FAULT_AROUND_PAGES (1UL << FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)
> > +#define FAULT_AROUND_MASK ~((1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT + FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)) - 1)
>
> Looking
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Dave Hansen
wrote:
>
> Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a
> FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4. That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example.
Actually, I'd expect that they won't mind, because there's no real
extra cost (the costs are
On 02/27/2014 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> +#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4
> +#define FAULT_AROUND_PAGES (1UL << FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)
> +#define FAULT_AROUND_MASK ~((1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT + FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)) - 1)
Looking at the performance data made me think of this: do we really want
this
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback ->map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On read page fault, if filesystem provides ->map_pages(), we try to map
up to FAULT_AROUND_PAGES pages around page fault address in hope to
reduce number of minor page
The patch introduces new vm_ops callback -map_pages() and uses it for
mapping easy accessible pages around fault address.
On read page fault, if filesystem provides -map_pages(), we try to map
up to FAULT_AROUND_PAGES pages around page fault address in hope to
reduce number of minor page faults.
On 02/27/2014 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
+#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4
+#define FAULT_AROUND_PAGES (1UL FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)
+#define FAULT_AROUND_MASK ~((1UL (PAGE_SHIFT + FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)) - 1)
Looking at the performance data made me think of this: do we really want
this to be
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Dave Hansen
dave.han...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a
FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4. That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example.
Actually, I'd expect that they won't mind, because there's no real
extra
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:59:59 -0800 Dave Hansen dave.han...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
On 02/27/2014 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
+#define FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4
+#define FAULT_AROUND_PAGES (1UL FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)
+#define FAULT_AROUND_MASK ~((1UL (PAGE_SHIFT + FAULT_AROUND_ORDER)) -
On 02/27/2014 02:06 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Dave Hansen
dave.han...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a
FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4. That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example.
Actually, I'd expect
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:34:55PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
Kirill's git test suite runs did show that it _can_ hurt in some cases.
And see last use-case for how much it can hurt. :)
It shouldn't differs much for the same *number* of pages between [u]archs
unless setup of the pte is
30 matches
Mail list logo
