[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130813142338.GD13330@kvack.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:23:38 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, lliubbo@...il.com,
aquini@...hat.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Tomasz Stanislawski <t.stanislaws@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Pin page control subsystem
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:46:42AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
> On wto, 2013-08-13 at 16:04 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > patch 2 introduce pinpage control
> > subsystem. So, subsystems want to control pinpage should implement own
> > pinpage_xxx functions because each subsystem would have other character
> > so what kinds of data structure for managing pinpage information depends
> > on them. Otherwise, they can use general functions defined in pinpage
> > subsystem. patch 3 hacks migration.c so that migration is
> > aware of pinpage now and migrate them with pinpage subsystem.
>
> I wonder why don't we use page->mapping and a_ops? Is there any
> disadvantage of such mapping/a_ops?
That's what the pending aio patches do, and I think this is a better
approach for those use-cases that the technique works for.
The biggest problem I see with the pinpage approach is that it's based on a
single page at a time. I'd venture a guess that many pinned pages are done
in groups of pages, not single ones.
-ben
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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