On Tuesday 27 May 2014 03:51 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> Rusty Russell wrote:
"Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> >>> Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
wrote:
> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
>
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order
Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
Shouldn't
On Tuesday 27 May 2014 03:51 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 03:57 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > > Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
> > > do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
> > > reasoning behind it?
> >
> > I'll do this. But if
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
reasoning behind it?
I'll do
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
> > Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
> > do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
> > reasoning behind it?
>
> I'll do this. But if do_fault_around() rework is needed, I
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:27:38 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:27:38 +0300 (EEST) Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
reasoning behind it?
I'll do this. But if do_fault_around()
On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:27:38 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and
Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> >> > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 01:02 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 15:52:07 +0930 Rusty Russell
> wrote:
>
>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
wrote:
> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and
On Tue, 20 May 2014 15:52:07 +0930 Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> >> > the order of the
"Kirill A. Shutemov" writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
>> > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
>> > use 1UL <<
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and
On Tue, 20 May 2014 15:52:07 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 01:02 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 15:52:07 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
Rusty Russell wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
the order of the fault-around
On Tue, 20 May 2014 13:27:38 +0300 (EEST) Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com writes:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hugh Dickins writes:
> >> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we try to generalize from two data points (a slight improvement
> >> > over doing it from 1!), eg:
> >> >
> >> > /* 4 seems good for 4k-page x86, 0
Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > Hugh Dickins writes:
>> >> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Ingo,
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 04:53 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Hugh Dickins writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Do you have any comments
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins
> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
> > use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
>
> Yes.
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
> the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
> use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
Yes. And shame on me for missing it (this
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hugh Dickins writes:
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ingo,
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
> >>> not,
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
use 1UL (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
Yes. And shame on me for missing
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com
wrote:
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
use 1UL (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
On Tuesday 20 May 2014 04:53 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Perhaps we try to generalize from two data points (a slight improvement
over doing it from 1!), eg:
/* 4 seems good for 4k-page x86, 0 seems good
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hugh Dickins writes:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ingo,
>>>
>>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
>>> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
>>>
>>>
>>> With regards
>>>
Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
>> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
>>
>>
>> With regards
>> Maddy
>>
>> > Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
With regards
Maddy
Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com writes:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
With regards
Maddy
Kirill
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
>
>
> With regards
> Maddy
>
> > Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
> > vm_ops->map_pages() for
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
With regards
Maddy
> Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
> vm_ops->map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around
> fault address in hope to reduce
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
With regards
Maddy
Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
vm_ops-map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around
fault address in hope to reduce
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Ingo,
Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
With regards
Maddy
Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
vm_ops-map_pages() for mapping easy
Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
vm_ops->map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around
fault address in hope to reduce number of minor page faults.
This patch creates infrastructure to modify the FAULT_AROUND_ORDER
value using mm/Kconfig. This will enable architecture
Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
vm_ops-map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around
fault address in hope to reduce number of minor page faults.
This patch creates infrastructure to modify the FAULT_AROUND_ORDER
value using mm/Kconfig. This will enable architecture
44 matches
Mail list logo
