Taken off list
Hmmm, list would like to know :-).
That would be my choice too but unfortunately I can't do that
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue 2008-12-02 22:10:29, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:11 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:07:24 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+ r =
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+ r = !memcmp(old_digest, sha1_item-sha1val, SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE);
+ mutex_unlock(sha1_lock);
+ if (r) {
+ char *old_addr, *new_addr;
+ old_addr = kmap_atomic(oldpage, KM_USER0);
+ new_addr = kmap_atomic(newpage,
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:07:24 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+ r = !memcmp(old_digest, sha1_item-sha1val, SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE);
+ mutex_unlock(sha1_lock);
+ if (r) {
+ char *old_addr, *new_addr;
+ old_addr =
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:07:24 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+ r = !memcmp(old_digest, sha1_item-sha1val, SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE);
+ mutex_unlock(sha1_lock);
+ if (r) {
+
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:11 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using current known techniques. A random collision is just as bad
news.
And, just to clarify, your concern would extend to any digest based
comparison? Or are you specifically concerned about sha1?
Wouldn't this
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:11 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:07:24 -0800
Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alan Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+ r = !memcmp(old_digest, sha1_item-sha1val,
+ r = !memcmp(old_digest, sha1_item-sha1val, SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE);
+ mutex_unlock(sha1_lock);
+ if (r) {
+ char *old_addr, *new_addr;
+ old_addr = kmap_atomic(oldpage, KM_USER0);
+ new_addr = kmap_atomic(newpage, KM_USER1);
+ r =
Ksm is driver that allow merging identical pages between one or more
applications in way unvisible to the application that use it.
Pages that are merged are marked as readonly and are COWed when any
application try to change them.
Ksm is used for cases where using fork() is not suitable,
one of
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:45 MST, Jonathan Corbet said:
Seems reasonably sane to me - only doing the first 128 bytes rather than
a full 4K page is some 32 times faster. Yes, you'll have the *occasional*
case where two pages were
From: Izik Eidus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ksm is driver that allow merging identical pages between one or more
applications in way unvisible to the application that use it.
pages that are merged are marked as readonly and are COWed when any application
try to change them.
ksm is working by walking over
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:21:40 +0200
Izik Eidus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Izik Eidus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ksm is driver that allow merging identical pages between one or more
applications in way unvisible to the application that use it.
pages that are merged are marked as readonly and are
I don't claim to begin to really understand the deep VM side of this
patch, but I can certainly pick nits as I work through it...sorry for
the lack of anything more substantive.
+static struct list_head slots;
Some of these file-static variable names seem a little..terse...
+#define
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:38:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Please fully document that interface in the changelog so that we can
review your decisions here. This is by far the most important
consideration - we can change all the code, but interfaces are for
ever.
Yes, this is the most
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
I don't claim to begin to really understand the deep VM side of this
patch, but I can certainly pick nits as I work through it...sorry for
the lack of anything more substantive.
+static struct list_head slots;
Some of these file-static variable names seem a
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:17:39 +0200
Izik Eidus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static int ksm_dev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
+{
+ try_module_get(THIS_MODULE);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int ksm_dev_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
+{
+
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:17:39 +0200
Izik Eidus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static int ksm_dev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
+{
+ try_module_get(THIS_MODULE);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int ksm_dev_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[Let's see if I can get through the rest without premature sends...]
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:17:39 +0200
Izik Eidus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it occurs to me that there's no sanity checks on any of
the values passed in by ioctl(). What happens if the user
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:45 MST, Jonathan Corbet said:
+#define PAGECMP_OFFSET 128
+#define PAGEHASH_SIZE (PAGECMP_OFFSET ? PAGECMP_OFFSET : PAGE_SIZE)
+/* hash the page */
+static void page_hash(struct page *page, unsigned char *digest)
So is this really saying that you only hash the
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
+static struct list_head slots;
Some of these file-static variable names seem a little..terse...
While ksm was written to be independent of a certain TLA-named kernel
subsystem developed two rooms away, they share some naming... this
refers to kvm 'memory
Izik Eidus wrote:
Any benchmarks on the runtime cost of having KSM running?
This one is problematic, ksm can take anything from 0% to 100% cpu
its all depend on how fast you run it.
it have 3 parameters:
number of pages to scan before it go to sleep
maximum number of pages to merge while we
Hi Jonathan,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:30:28PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
But it will fail in a totally silent and mysterious way. Doesn't it
seem better to verify the values when you can return a meaningful error
code to the caller?
I think you're right, but just because find_extend_vma
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
What about things like cache effects from scanning all those pages? My
guess is that, if you're trying to run dozens of Windows guests, cache
usage is not at the top of your list of concerns, but I could be
wrong. Usually am...
Ok, ksm does make the cache of the
23 matches
Mail list logo
