[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1405271152400.14883@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:56:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] VM_PINNED
On Tue, 27 May 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Code could be easily added to alloc_pages_vma() to consider the pinned
> > status on allocation. Remove GFP_MOVABLE if the vma is pinned.
>
> Yes, but alloc_pages_vma() isn't used for shared pages (with exception
> of shmem and hugetlbfs).
alloc_pages_vma() is used for all paths where we populate address ranges
with pages. This is what we are doing when pinning. Pages are not
allocated outside of a vma context.
What do you mean by shared pages that are not shmem pages? AnonPages that
are referenced from multiple processes?
> So whichever way around we have to do the mm_populate() + eviction hook
> + migration code, and since that equally covers the anon case, why
> bother?
Migration is expensive and the memory registration overhead already
causes lots of complaints.
--
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