On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:59:07PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> John,
>
> A question at on one point:
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:38 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> > On 10/02/2012 12:39 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> [...]
> >> The SIGBUS interface could have some merit if it really reduces
> >>
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:59:07PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
John,
A question at on one point:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:38 AM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/02/2012 12:39 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
The SIGBUS interface could have some merit if it really reduces
[CC += linux-api, since this is an API change.]
Hi John,
A couple of other questions that occurred to me...
What are the expected/planned semantics of volatile ranges for mlocked
pages? I noticed that Minchan's patch series
(https://lwn.net/Articles/522154/) gives an error on attempt to mark
[CC += linux-api, since this is an API change.]
Hi John,
A couple of other questions that occurred to me...
What are the expected/planned semantics of volatile ranges for mlocked
pages? I noticed that Minchan's patch series
(https://lwn.net/Articles/522154/) gives an error on attempt to mark
John,
A question at on one point:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:38 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 12:39 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
>> The SIGBUS interface could have some merit if it really reduces
>> overhead. I
>> worry about app bugs that could result from the non-deterministic
>>
John,
A question at on one point:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:38 AM, John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 10/02/2012 12:39 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
The SIGBUS interface could have some merit if it really reduces
overhead. I
worry about app bugs that could result from the
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:30:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 01:07 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >Note it doesn't have to be a vs. situation. madvise could be an
> >additional way to interface with volatile ranges on a given fd.
> >
> >That is, madvise doesn't have to mean anonymous
On 10/09/2012 01:07 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note it doesn't have to be a vs. situation. madvise could be an
additional way to interface with volatile ranges on a given fd.
That is, madvise doesn't have to mean anonymous memory. As a matter of
fact, MADV_WILLNEED/MADV_DONTNEED are usually used on
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
> fd based interfaces vs madvise:
> In talking with Taras Glek, he pointed out that for his
> needs, the fd based interface is a little annoying, as it
> requires having to get access to tmpfs file and mmap it in,
>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
fd based interfaces vs madvise:
In talking with Taras Glek, he pointed out that for his
needs, the fd based interface is a little annoying, as it
requires having to get access to tmpfs file and mmap it in,
On 10/09/2012 01:07 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note it doesn't have to be a vs. situation. madvise could be an
additional way to interface with volatile ranges on a given fd.
That is, madvise doesn't have to mean anonymous memory. As a matter of
fact, MADV_WILLNEED/MADV_DONTNEED are usually used on
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:30:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 10/09/2012 01:07 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Note it doesn't have to be a vs. situation. madvise could be an
additional way to interface with volatile ranges on a given fd.
That is, madvise doesn't have to mean anonymous memory. As a
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:25:07PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 11:25 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >Hi John,
> >
> >On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
> >>After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
> >>side-discussions and try to
On 10/07/2012 11:25 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hi John,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current
Hi John,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
>
> After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
> side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
> with sending out my current implementation for review.
>
> Also: I'm going on
Hi John,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current implementation for review.
Also: I'm going on four
On 10/07/2012 11:25 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hi John,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:25:07PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 10/07/2012 11:25 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hi John,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:16:30PM -0400, John Stultz wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my
On 10/02/2012 12:39 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:16:30 -0400 John Stultz wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current implementation for review.
On 9/28/2012 8:16 PM, John Stultz wrote:
There is two rough approaches that I have tried so far
1) Managing volatile range objects, in a tree or list, which are then
purged using a shrinker
2) Page based management, where pages marked volatile are moved to
a new LRU list and are purged from
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:16:30 -0400 John Stultz wrote:
>
> After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
> side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
> with sending out my current implementation for review.
>
> Also: I'm going on four weeks of
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:16:30 -0400 John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current implementation for review.
Also: I'm going
On 9/28/2012 8:16 PM, John Stultz wrote:
snip
There is two rough approaches that I have tried so far
1) Managing volatile range objects, in a tree or list, which are then
purged using a shrinker
2) Page based management, where pages marked volatile are moved to
a new LRU list and are purged
On 10/02/2012 12:39 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:16:30 -0400 John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current implementation for review.
Also: I'm going on four weeks of paternity leave in the very near
(but non-deterministic) future. So
After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
with sending out my current implementation for review.
Also: I'm going on four weeks of paternity leave in the very near
(but non-deterministic) future. So
26 matches
Mail list logo
