On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> How painful would it be to get rid of _PAGE_NUMA entirely? Page bits
> are a highly precious commodity and saving one would be valuable.
I don't think _PAGE_NUMA is a problem. It's only set when the page is
not present, so we have tons of
On 04/08/2014 11:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I think the real underlying objection was that PTE_NUMA was the last
> leftover from AutoNUMA, and removing it would have made it not a
> 'compromise' patch set between 'AutoNUMA' and 'sched/numa', but would
> have made the sched/numa approach 'win
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> > PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> > architectures it would mean that VMA-fixups would be required w
On 04/08/2014 02:55 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>> I picked a solution. The posted series uses a different bit.
>
> Yes, and I actually like that. I have nothing against your patch
> series. I'm ranting and raving because you then seemed to sa
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:55:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > I picked a solution. The posted series uses a different bit.
>
> Yes, and I actually like that. I have nothing against your patch
> series. I'm ranting and raving because y
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> I picked a solution. The posted series uses a different bit.
Yes, and I actually like that. I have nothing against your patch
series. I'm ranting and raving because you then seemed to say "maybe
we shouldn't pick a solution after all" when yo
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:01:39AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > If you are ok with leaving _PAGE_NUMA as _PAGE_PROTNONE
>
> NO I AM NOT!
>
> Dammit, this feature is f*cking brain-damaged.
>
> My complaint has been (and continues to be)
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 07:30:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> > PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> > architectures it would mea
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Like this:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/431
>
> That used the generic PROT_NONE infrastructure and compared, on fault,
> the page protection bits against the vma->vm_page_prot bits?
>
> So the objection to that approach was the v
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> architectures it would mean that VMA-fixups would be required when marking
> PTEs for NUMA hinting
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:22:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >
> > > David, is your patchset going to be pushed in this merge window as
> > > expected?
> >
> > Apparentl
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> If you are ok with leaving _PAGE_NUMA as _PAGE_PROTNONE
NO I AM NOT!
Dammit, this feature is f*cking brain-damaged.
My complaint has been (and continues to be):
- either it is 100% the same as PROTNONE, in which case thjat
_PAGE_NUMA bit h
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:22:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > David, is your patchset going to be pushed in this merge window as expected?
>
> Apparently aiming for 3.16 right now.
>
> > That being said, these bits are precious,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:22:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > David, is your patchset going to be pushed in this merge window as expected?
>
> Apparently aiming for 3.16 right now.
>
> > That being said, these bits are precious, a
On 04/08/2014 08:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> David, is your patchset going to be pushed in this merge window as expected?
>
> Apparently aiming for 3.16 right now.
>
>> That being said, these bits are precious, and if this ends up be
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> David, is your patchset going to be pushed in this merge window as expected?
Apparently aiming for 3.16 right now.
> That being said, these bits are precious, and if this ends up being a
> case where "only Xen needs another bit" once agai
On 04/08/2014 06:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Using unused physical bits is something that will break eventually.
>
> Changelog since V1
> o Reuse software-bits
> o Use paravirt ops when modifying PTEs in the NUMA helpers
>
> Aliasing _PAGE_NUMA and _PAGE_PROTNONE had some convenient properties but
Using unused physical bits is something that will break eventually.
Changelog since V1
o Reuse software-bits
o Use paravirt ops when modifying PTEs in the NUMA helpers
Aliasing _PAGE_NUMA and _PAGE_PROTNONE had some convenient properties but
it ultimately gave Xen a headache and pisses almost eve
18 matches
Mail list logo
