Hello Minchan
On 02/09/2015 07:46 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello, Michael
>
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:41:12PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> On 02/05/2015 02:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Minchan
On 02/09/2015 07:46 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello, Michael
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:41:12PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 02/05/2015 02:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 4
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:57:50PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Michael
>
> On 02/05/2015 04:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 04-02-15 20:24:27, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > [...]
> >> So, how about this text:
> >>
> >> After a successful MADV_DONTNEED
Hello, Michael
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:41:12PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 02:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>>
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:57:50PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Michael
On 02/05/2015 04:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 04-02-15 20:24:27, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
So, how about this text:
After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the seman‐
Hello, Michael
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:41:12PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 02/05/2015 02:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On Fri 06-02-15 16:57:50, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, this wording is better because many users are not aware of
> > MAP_ANON|MAP_SHARED being file backed in fact and mmap man page doesn't
> > mention that.
>
> (Michal, would you have a text to propose to add to the mmap(2) page?
>
Hi Michael
On 02/05/2015 04:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-02-15 20:24:27, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> [...]
>> So, how about this text:
>>
>> After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the seman‐
>> tics of memory access in the specified region are
>>
On 02/05/2015 02:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4
On Fri 06-02-15 16:57:50, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
Yes, this wording is better because many users are not aware of
MAP_ANON|MAP_SHARED being file backed in fact and mmap man page doesn't
mention that.
(Michal, would you have a text to propose to add to the mmap(2) page?
Maybe it
Hi Michael
On 02/05/2015 04:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 04-02-15 20:24:27, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
So, how about this text:
After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the seman‐
tics of memory access in the specified region are
On 02/05/2015 02:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015
On 02/02/2015 05:18 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:05:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:25 + Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>>> glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
>>> instead of creating new areans if the existing ones
On Wed 04-02-15 20:24:27, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
> So, how about this text:
>
> After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the seman‐
> tics of memory access in the specified region are
> changed: subsequent accesses of pages in the range
On Wed 04-02-15 20:24:27, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
So, how about this text:
After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the seman‐
tics of memory access in the specified region are
changed: subsequent accesses of pages in the range
On 02/02/2015 05:18 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:05:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:25 + Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
instead of creating new areans if the existing
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Vlastimil,
> >>
> >> On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>
>> Hello Vlastimil,
>>
>> On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> - that covers mlocking ok, not sure if the rest fits the "shared pages"
> case
>
On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
- that covers mlocking ok, not sure if the rest fits the "shared pages"
case
though. I dont see any check for other kinds of shared pages in the code.
Agreed.
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/03/2015 05:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>
>> On 02/03/2015 12:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100,
On 02/03/2015 05:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil
Thanks for CCing me into this thread.
NP
On 02/03/2015 12:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
It doesn't
On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
- that covers mlocking ok, not sure if the rest fits the shared pages
case
though. I dont see any check for other kinds of shared pages in the code.
On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
- that covers mlocking ok, not sure if the rest fits the shared pages
case
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:24:27PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 18:02, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 02/04/2015 03:00 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz
On 02/03/2015 05:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Vlastimil
Thanks for CCing me into this thread.
NP
On 02/03/2015 12:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
It doesn't
Hello Vlastimil,
On 4 February 2015 at 14:46, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
On 02/03/2015 05:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 02/03/2015 12:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100,
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:42:53PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> [CC linux-api, man pages]
> >>
> >> On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> > On 02/02/2015 08:55
On 02/03/2015 04:21 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-02-15 11:16:00, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
>>> And if we agree that there is indeed no guarantee, what's the actual
>>> semantic
>>> difference from MADV_FREE? I guess none?
Hello Vlastimil
Thanks for CCing me into this thread.
On 02/03/2015 12:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> [CC linux-api, man pages]
>>>
>>> On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen
On Tue 03-02-15 11:16:00, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> > And if we agree that there is indeed no guarantee, what's the actual
> > semantic
> > difference from MADV_FREE? I guess none? So there's only a possible
> > perfomance
> >
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> [CC linux-api, man pages]
>>
>> On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> > On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> >> This patch identifies when a thread is frequently
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:47:56PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:47:18AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > This patch identifies when a thread is
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [CC linux-api, man pages]
>
> On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
> >> on the same region of memory
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [CC linux-api, man pages]
>
> On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
> >> on the same region of memory
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:18:24 + Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > > Is there something
> > > preventing this from being addressed within glibc?
> >
> > I doubt it other than I expect they'll punt it back and blame either the
> >
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:47:18AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
> > > on the same region of memory and starts
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
> > on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the hint. On an 8-core
> > single-socket machine this was the
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
>> on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the hint. On an 8-core
>> single-socket machine this was
On Tue 03-02-15 11:16:00, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
And if we agree that there is indeed no guarantee, what's the actual
semantic
difference from MADV_FREE? I guess none? So there's only a possible
perfomance
difference?
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the hint. On an 8-core
single-socket machine this was the
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
on the same region of memory and starts
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:47:56PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:47:18AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling
On 02/03/2015 04:21 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 03-02-15 11:16:00, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
And if we agree that there is indeed no guarantee, what's the actual
semantic
difference from MADV_FREE? I guess none? So there's
Hello Vlastimil
Thanks for CCing me into this thread.
On 02/03/2015 12:42 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:47:18AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:35:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:18:24 + Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
Is there something
preventing this from being addressed within glibc?
I doubt it other than I expect they'll punt it back and blame either the
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
on the same region of memory and starts
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:42:53PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 02/03/2015 11:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:19:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[CC linux-api, man pages]
On 02/02/2015 11:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:22:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the hint. On an 8-core
single-socket machine this was the impact on
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 14:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:18:24 + Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > > Is there something
> > > preventing this from being addressed within glibc?
> >
> > I doubt it other than I expect they'll punt it back and blame either the
> > application for
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:18:24 + Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Is there something
> > preventing this from being addressed within glibc?
>
> I doubt it other than I expect they'll punt it back and blame either the
> application for being stupid or the kernel for being slow.
*Is* the application
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
> on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the hint. On an 8-core
> single-socket machine this was the impact on ebizzy using glibc 2.19.
The manpage, at least, claims that
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:05:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:25 + Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
> > instead of creating new areans if the existing ones were contended.
> > The decision appears to
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:25 + Mel Gorman wrote:
> glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
> instead of creating new areans if the existing ones were contended.
> The decision appears to have been made so the allocator scales better but the
> downside is that
glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
instead of creating new areans if the existing ones were contended.
The decision appears to have been made so the allocator scales better but the
downside is that madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is now called for these per-thread
areans
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:05:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:25 + Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
instead of creating new areans if the existing ones were contended.
The decision
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:55:25 + Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
instead of creating new areans if the existing ones were contended.
The decision appears to have been made so the allocator scales better but the
downside
On 02/02/2015 08:55 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This patch identifies when a thread is frequently calling MADV_DONTNEED
on the same region of memory and starts ignoring the hint. On an 8-core
single-socket machine this was the impact on ebizzy using glibc 2.19.
The manpage, at least, claims that we
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:18:24 + Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
Is there something
preventing this from being addressed within glibc?
I doubt it other than I expect they'll punt it back and blame either the
application for being stupid or the kernel for being slow.
*Is* the
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 14:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:18:24 + Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de wrote:
Is there something
preventing this from being addressed within glibc?
I doubt it other than I expect they'll punt it back and blame either the
application
glibc malloc changed behaviour in glibc 2.10 to have per-thread arenas
instead of creating new areans if the existing ones were contended.
The decision appears to have been made so the allocator scales better but the
downside is that madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is now called for these per-thread
areans
62 matches
Mail list logo
