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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
> >> >
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo