On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I came up with this under the assumptions:
> >
> > 1) One locked region per resource group
> > 2) Drop closid after locking
>
> I am also now working under these assumptions ...
>
> > Then the
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I came up with this under the assumptions:
> >
> > 1) One locked region per resource group
> > 2) Drop closid after locking
>
> I am also now working under these assumptions ...
>
> > Then the
Hi Thomas,
On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
Moving to "exclusive" mode it appears that, when enabled for a resource
group, all
Hi Thomas,
On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
Moving to "exclusive" mode it appears that, when enabled for a resource
group, all
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/28/2018 9:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I hesitated doing something like this because during the review of this
> series there was resistance to using sysfs files for multiple values. I
> will proceed with your suggestion noting that it is tied
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/28/2018 9:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I hesitated doing something like this because during the review of this
> series there was resistance to using sysfs files for multiple values. I
> will proceed with your suggestion noting that it is tied
Reinette,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> A change to start us off with could be to initialize the schemata with
> >> all the shareable and unused bits set for all domains when a new
>
Reinette,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> A change to start us off with could be to initialize the schemata with
> >> all the shareable and unused bits set for all domains when a new
>
Hi Thomas,
On 2/28/2018 9:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
directory
Hi Thomas,
On 2/28/2018 9:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
directory
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> > > directory already.
> > >
> > > - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> > > directory already.
> > >
> > > - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> > directory already.
> >
> > - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension
> >which makes sense
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> > directory already.
> >
> > - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension
> >which makes sense
Hi Thomas,
On 2/27/2018 11:52 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Let's assume its real,
>> so you could do the following:
>>
>> mkdir group <- acquires closid
>> echo locksetup > mode<- Creates 'lockarea' file
>> echo L2:0 > lockarea
>>
Hi Thomas,
On 2/27/2018 11:52 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Let's assume its real,
>> so you could do the following:
>>
>> mkdir group <- acquires closid
>> echo locksetup > mode<- Creates 'lockarea' file
>> echo L2:0 > lockarea
>>
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> directory already.
>
> - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension
>which makes sense for regular cache allocations as well.
>
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> directory already.
>
> - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension
>which makes sense for regular cache allocations as well.
>
Hi Thomas,
On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> A change to start us off with could be to initialize the schemata with
>> all the shareable and unused bits set for all domains when a new
>> resource group is created.
>
> The new resource
Hi Thomas,
On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> A change to start us off with could be to initialize the schemata with
>> all the shareable and unused bits set for all domains when a new
>> resource group is created.
>
> The new resource
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > Moving to "exclusive" mode it appears that, when enabled for a resource
> > group, all domains of all resources are forced to have an "exclusive"
> > region associated with this resource group (closid).
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > Moving to "exclusive" mode it appears that, when enabled for a resource
> > group, all domains of all resources are forced to have an "exclusive"
> > region associated with this resource group (closid).
Reinette,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I started looking at how this implementation may look and would like to
> confirm with you that your intentions behind the new "exclusive" and
> "locked" modes can be maintained. I also have a few questions.
Phew :)
> Focusing on CAT a
Reinette,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I started looking at how this implementation may look and would like to
> confirm with you that your intentions behind the new "exclusive" and
> "locked" modes can be maintained. I also have a few questions.
Phew :)
> Focusing on CAT a
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> directory already.
>
> - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension
>which makes sense for regular cache allocations as well.
>
>
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Let's look at the existing crtl/mon groups which are each represented by a
> directory already.
>
> - Adding a 'size' file to the ctrl groups would be a natural extension
>which makes sense for regular cache allocations as well.
>
>
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 02/20/2018 03:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The other problem is that we'd need to have MAP_CONTIG first so you
> > actually can allocate physically contigous memory from user space. Mike is
> > working on that, but it's not available today. The
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 02/20/2018 03:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The other problem is that we'd need to have MAP_CONTIG first so you
> > actually can allocate physically contigous memory from user space. Mike is
> > working on that, but it's not available today. The
Hi Mike,
On 2/20/2018 5:58 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 02/20/2018 03:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
Now the remaining thing is the memory
Hi Mike,
On 2/20/2018 5:58 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 02/20/2018 03:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
Now the remaining thing is the memory
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 3:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you really sure that the life time rules of plr are correct vs. an
>>> application
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 3:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you really sure that the life time rules of plr are correct vs. an
>>> application
On 02/20/2018 03:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>
>>> Now the remaining thing is the memory allocation and the mmap itself. I
>>> really dislike the
On 02/20/2018 03:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>
>>> Now the remaining thing is the memory allocation and the mmap itself. I
>>> really dislike the
Reinette,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >
> > Are you really sure that the life time rules of plr are correct vs. an
> > application which still has the locked memory mapped? i.e. the
Reinette,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >
> > Are you really sure that the life time rules of plr are correct vs. an
> > application which still has the locked memory mapped? i.e. the
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> static void __pseudo_lock_region_release(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
>> {
>> bool is_new_plr = (plr == new_plr);
>> @@ -93,6 +175,23 @@ static void
Hi Thomas,
On 2/20/2018 9:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> static void __pseudo_lock_region_release(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
>> {
>> bool is_new_plr = (plr == new_plr);
>> @@ -93,6 +175,23 @@ static void
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> static void __pseudo_lock_region_release(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
> {
> bool is_new_plr = (plr == new_plr);
> @@ -93,6 +175,23 @@ static void __pseudo_lock_region_release(struct
> pseudo_lock_region *plr)
> if (!plr->deleted)
>
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> static void __pseudo_lock_region_release(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
> {
> bool is_new_plr = (plr == new_plr);
> @@ -93,6 +175,23 @@ static void __pseudo_lock_region_release(struct
> pseudo_lock_region *plr)
> if (!plr->deleted)
>
When a user writes the requested pseudo-locking schemata it will trigger
the pseudo-locking of equivalent sized memory. A successful return from
this schemata write means that the pseudo-locking succeeded.
To support the pseudo-locking we first initialize as much as we can
about the region that
When a user writes the requested pseudo-locking schemata it will trigger
the pseudo-locking of equivalent sized memory. A successful return from
this schemata write means that the pseudo-locking succeeded.
To support the pseudo-locking we first initialize as much as we can
about the region that
42 matches
Mail list logo
