On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:22:08 +1100
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure how well that translates to real world workloads, but it
> might help somewhere. Admittedly some of the patches are pretty
> complex...
I like your patch series.
They are completely orthogonal to my patches thou
On Saturday 22 December 2007 01:17, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:52:19 +1100
>
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW. if you have any workloads that are limited by page reclaim,
> > especially unmapped file backed pagecache reclaim, then I have some
> > stright-line-speed
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:33 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST)
> Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list,
> > > because we can find them a
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:52:19 +1100
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW. if you have any workloads that are limited by page reclaim,
> especially unmapped file backed pagecache reclaim, then I have some
> stright-line-speedup patches which you might find interesting (I can
> send them if y
On Friday 21 December 2007 07:56, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:04:26 -0500
>
> Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
> > >
> > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > H
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:04:26 -0500
Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
> > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmm, I still don't know (or forgot) why you don't just use the
> > > old s
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list,
> > because we can find them again via the ptes when they become
> > unlocked, and there is no poin
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list,
> because we can find them again via the ptes when they become
> unlocked, and there is no point background scanning them, because
> they're always going to be locked while they're mlocked.
B
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:45, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
>
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
> > >
> > > This patch:
> > >
> > > 1) defines
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 09:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both
> > anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow
> > background sca
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
> > >
> > > This patch:
> > >
> > > 1) def
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both
> anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow
> background scan does make sense.
I suspect we won't be needing that code. The S
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
> > >
> > > This patch:
> > >
> > > 1) de
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
> >
> > This patch:
> >
> > 1) defines the [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM_MLOCK sub-option and the
> >stub version of
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2.
>
> This patch:
>
> 1) defines the [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM_MLOCK sub-option and the
>stub version of the mlock/noreclaim APIs when it's
>not configured. Depends on [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM.
>
V2 -> V3:
+ rebase to 23-mm1 atop RvR's split lru series
+ fix page flags macros for *PageMlocked() when not configured.
+ ensure lru_add_drain_all() runs on all cpus when NORECLIM_MLOCK
configured. Was just for NUMA.
V1 -> V2:
+ moved this patch [and related patches] up to right after
ramdis
16 matches
Mail list logo