On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:56:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
As a user I know it because I didn't put a kernel source into /tmp. A
programm can't reasonably know that.
Various apps requires you (admin/user) to tune the size of their
caches. Seems like you never tried to setup a
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:38:21AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
Sure, and that's what I meant when I said VPC + large pages was
a means to the end, not the only solution to the problem.
The whole point is that it's not an end, it's an end to your own fs
centric view only (which is sure fair
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:09:10PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
Ok, let's step back for a moment and look at a basic, fundamental
constraint of disks - seek capacity. A decade ago, a terabyte of
filesystem had 30 disks behind it - a seek capacity of about
6000 seeks/s. Nowdays, that's a single
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:30:17AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, *none* of those things are true. The VM doesn't guarantee
anything, and is already very much about statistics in many places. You
Many? I can't recall anything besides PF_MEMALLOC and the decision
that the VM is oom.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:56:07AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
When has free ever given any usefull free number? I can perfectly
fine allocate another gigabyte of memory despide free saing 25MB. But
that is because I know that the buffer/cached are not locked in.
Well, as you said you
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 10:14:44PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
- Userspace allocates a lot of memory in those slabs.
If with slabs you mean slab/slub, I can't follow
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 07:15:04PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
Except now as I've repeatadly pointed out, you have internal fragmentation
problems. If we went with the SLAB, we would need 16MB slabs on PowerPC for
example to get the same sort of results and a lot of copying and moving when
Well
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:54:18PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
The 16MB is the size of a hugepage, the size of interest as far as I am
concerned. Your idea makes sense for large block support, but much less
for huge pages because you are incurring a cost in the general case for
something that may
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:14:42PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I keep coming back to the fact that movable objects should be moved
out of the way for unmovable ones. Anything else just allows
That's incidentally exactly what the slab does, no need to reinvent
the wheel for that, it's an
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 10:14:44PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
How does that help? Will slabs move objects around to combine two
1. It helps providing a few guarantees: when you run /usr/bin/free
you won't get a random number, but a strong _guarantee_. That ram will
be available no matter
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:04:41PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
I would think that your approach would be slower since you always have to
populate 1 N ptes when mmapping a file? Plus there is a lot of wastage
I don't have to populate them, I could just map one at time. The only
reason I
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:52:19AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
The idea that there even _is_ a bug to fail when higher order pages
cannot be allocated was also brushed aside by some people at the
vm/fs summit. I don't know if those people had gone through the
math about this, but it goes
Hi Mel,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:36:07PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
that increasing the pagesize like what Andrea suggested would lead to
internal fragmentation problems. Regrettably we didn't discuss Andrea's
The config_page_shift guarantees the kernel stacks or whatever not
defragmentable
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:31:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
Now, the worst case scenario for your patch is that a hostile process
allocates large amount of memory and mlocks() one 4K page per 64K chunk
(this is unlikely in practice I know). The end result is you have many
64KB regions
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:41:08PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
The advantages of this approach over Andreas is basically that the 4k
filesystems still can be used as is. 4k is useful for binaries and for
If you mean that with my approach you can't use a 4k filesystem as is,
that's not
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:49:07PM +, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
Hi all,
a tarball of the Linux Logical Volume Manager 0.9.1 Beta 5 is available now at
http://www.sistina.com/
for download (Follow the "LVM download page" link).
This release fixes several bugs.
See the
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 01:01:25PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 12:01:35PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 11:54:24AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
I have not implemented O_SYNC in NWFS, but it looks like I need to add it
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:42:48PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
[..] What am I missing?
You should rename it to PG_protected.
Andrea
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 04:54:16PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
[..] The
one piece of that missing [..]
Ok, I was just looking the context of your diff.
18 matches
Mail list logo
