[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533B4555.3000608@sr71.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:01:41 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Volatile Ranges (v12) & LSF-MM discussion fodder
On 04/01/2014 02:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 02:21 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Either way, optimistic volatile pointers are nowhere near as
>> transparent to the application as the above description suggests,
>> which makes this usecase not very interesting, IMO.
>
> ... however, I think you're still derating the value way too much. The
> case of user space doing elastic memory management is more and more
> common, and for a lot of those applications it is perfectly reasonable
> to either not do system calls or to have to devolatilize first.
The SIGBUS is only in cases where the memory is set as volatile and
_then_ accessed, right?
John, this was something that the Mozilla guys asked for, right? Any
idea why this isn't ever a problem for them?
--
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