Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
Hi Neil, On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:03 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: On Saturday February 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the NFS and net people's take on all of this? Well I'm only vaguely an NFS person, barely a net person, sporadically an mm person, but I've had a look and it seems to

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 11:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: mm-reserve.patch I'm confused by __mem_reserve_add. + reserve = mem_reserve_root.pages; + __calc_reserve(res, pages, 0); + reserve = mem_reserve_root.pages - reserve; __calc_reserve will always add 'pages'

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Miklos Szeredi
mm-page_file_methods.patch This makes page_offset and others more expensive by adding a conditional jump to a function call that is not usually made. Why do swap pages have a different index to everyone else? Because the page-index of an anonymous page is related to

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 16:29 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: mm-page_file_methods.patch This makes page_offset and others more expensive by adding a conditional jump to a function call that is not usually made. Why do swap pages have a different index to everyone else?

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 16:29 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: mm-page_file_methods.patch This makes page_offset and others more expensive by adding a conditional jump to a function call that is not usually made. Why do swap pages have a different index to everyone else?

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Miklos Szeredi
mm-page_file_methods.patch This makes page_offset and others more expensive by adding a conditional jump to a function call that is not usually made. Why do swap pages have a different index to everyone else? Because the page-index of an anonymous page

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-26 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:50:42 +0100 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:03 +1100, Neil Brown wrote: On Saturday February 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the NFS and net people's take on all of this? Well I'm only vaguely an NFS person, barely a net

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-25 Thread Neil Brown
On Saturday February 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:46:10 +0100 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another posting of the full swap over NFS series. Well I looked. There's rather a lot of it and I wouldn't pretend to understand it. But pretending is fun :-)

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:46:10 +0100 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another posting of the full swap over NFS series. Well I looked. There's rather a lot of it and I wouldn't pretend to understand it. What is the NFS and net people's take on all of this? -- To unsubscribe from this

[PATCH 00/28] Swap over NFS -v16

2008-02-20 Thread Peter Zijlstra
Hi, Another posting of the full swap over NFS series. Andrew/Linus, could we start thinking of sticking this in -mm? [ patches against 2.6.25-rc2-mm1, also to be found online at: http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/vm_deadlock/v2.6.25-rc2-mm1/ ] The patch-set can be split in