[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy-Mw74rAdLMMMUgnsG3ZttMWVNGz7CXZJY7q9fqyRYfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:31:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So why am I wrong? Why is testing for dirty not the same as testing
> for writable?
>
> I can see a few cases:
>
> - your load has lots of writable (but not written-to) shared memory
Hmm. I tried to look at the xfsprog sources, and I don't see any
MAP_SHARED activity. It looks like it's just using pread64/pwrite64,
and the only MAP_SHARED is for the xfsio mmap test thing, not for
xfsrepair.
So I don't see any shared mappings, but I don't know the code-base.
> - something completely different that I am entirely missing
So I think there's something I'm missing. For non-shared mappings, I
still have the idea that pte_dirty should be the same as pte_write.
And yet, your testing of 3.19 shows that it's a big difference.
There's clearly something I'm completely missing.
Linus
--
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