Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:09:42PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Am I missing something about why it was never merged? > > > > Because I got lost in IB code and didn't manage to bribe anyone into > > fixing that for me. > > Well the

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-05 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Am I missing something about why it was never merged? > > Because I got lost in IB code and didn't manage to bribe anyone into > fixing that for me. Well the complexity increased since then with the on demand pinning, mmu notifiers etc etc ... I

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Eric B Munson wrote: > All, > > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create > infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. > AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it just needed some help > from the IB

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-05 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Am I missing something about why it was never merged? Because I got lost in IB code and didn't manage to bribe anyone into fixing that for me. Well the complexity increased since then with the on demand pinning, mmu notifiers etc etc ... I thought

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:09:42PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Am I missing something about why it was never merged? Because I got lost in IB code and didn't manage to bribe anyone into fixing that for me. Well the complexity increased

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-05 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:41:05PM -0500, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it just needed some help from the IB folks.

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-04 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > No, you were correct and thanks for the hint. It's only ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE > from > isolate_migratepages_range(), which is CMA, not regular compaction. > But I wonder, can we change this even after VM_PINNED is introduced, if > existing > code

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-04 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: snip No, you were correct and thanks for the hint. It's only ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE from isolate_migratepages_range(), which is CMA, not regular compaction. But I wonder, can we change this even after VM_PINNED is introduced, if existing code

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 03/03/2015 10:52 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Eric B Munson wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >> > On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: >> > > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> > > >> > > Agreed. But as has been discussed in

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Eric B Munson wrote: > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: > > > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > > >> On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All, > > >> > > > >> > After LSF/MM last year

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > >> On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All, > >> > > >> > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create > >> >

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: > On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All, >> > >> > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create >> > infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them.

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > It also passes TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK to try_to_unmap(). So what am I missing? Where > is this restriction? Its in the defrag code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Eric B Munson wrote: > > So you are saying that mlocking (VM_LOCKED) prevents migration and thus > > compaction to do its job? If that's true, I think it's a bug as it is AFAIK > > supposed to work just fine. > > Agreed. But as has been discussed in the threads around the

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 19:35 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All, > > > > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create > > infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. > > AFAICT, there was no objection to

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All, > > > > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create > > infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. > > AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:> All, > > After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create > infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. > AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it just needed some help > from the IB folks. > > Am I

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it just needed

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 19:35 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Eric B Munson wrote: So you are saying that mlocking (VM_LOCKED) prevents migration and thus compaction to do its job? If that's true, I think it's a bug as it is AFAIK supposed to work just fine. Agreed. But as has been discussed in the threads around the VM_PINNED

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. AFAICT, there was no objection to the set, it just needed some help from the IB folks. Am I missing

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create infrastructure for pinning

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: It also passes TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK to try_to_unmap(). So what am I missing? Where is this restriction? Its in the defrag code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set that would create infrastructure for pinning pages as opposed to simply locking them. AFAICT,

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Eric B Munson
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 06:41 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: All, After LSF/MM last year Peter revived a patch set

Re: Resurrecting the VM_PINNED discussion

2015-03-03 Thread Vlastimil Babka
On 03/03/2015 10:52 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: On 03/03/2015 07:45 PM, Eric B Munson wrote: On Tue, 03 Mar 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: Agreed. But as has been discussed in the threads around the