[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802081540180.4291@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:41:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, andrea@...ranet.com,
avi@...ranet.com, izike@...ranet.com,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
steiner@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com, general@...ts.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] MMU Notifiers V6
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > What about ib_umem_get()?
> >
> > Ok. It pins using an elevated refcount. Same as XPmem right now. With that
> > we effectively pin a page (page migration will fail) but we will
> > continually be reclaiming the page and may repeatedly try to move it. We
> > have issues with XPmem causing too many pages to be pinned and thus the
> > OOM getting into weird behavior modes (OOM or stop lru scanning due to
> > all_reclaimable set).
> >
> > An elevated refcount will also not be noticed by any of the schemes under
> > consideration to improve LRU scanning performance.
>
> Christoph, I am not sure what you are saying here. With v4 and later,
> I thought we were able to use the rmap invalidation to remove the ref
> count that XPMEM was holding and therefore be able to swapout. Did I miss
> something? I agree the existing XPMEM does pin. I hope we are not saying
> the XPMEM based upon these patches will not be able to swap/migrate.
Correct.
You missed the turn of the conversation to how ib_umem_get() works.
Currently it seems to pin the same way that the SLES10 XPmem works.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists