[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c03e2254-4829-d872-d6f0-ed5d1a22ce89@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 09:24:52 -0700
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM,ATTEND] shared TLB, hugetlb reservations
On 04/03/2017 04:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-03-17 17:30:55, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 01/10/2017 03:02 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> Another more concrete topic is hugetlb reservations. Michal Hocko
>>> proposed the topic "mm patches review bandwidth", and brought up the
>>> related subject of areas in need of attention from an architectural
>>> POV. I suggested that hugetlb reservations was one such area. I'm
>>> guessing it was introduced to solve a rather concrete problem. However,
>>> over time additional hugetlb functionality was added and the
>>> capabilities of the reservation code was stretched to accommodate.
>>> It would be good to step back and take a look at the design of this
>>> code to determine if a rewrite/redesign is necessary. Michal suggested
>>> documenting the current design/code as a first step. If people think
>>> this is worth discussion at the summit, I could put together such a
>>> design before the gathering.
>>
>> I attempted to put together a design/overview of how hugetlb reservations
>> currently work. Hopefully, this will be useful.
>
> I am still too busy to read through this carefuly and provide a useful
> feedback but I believe this should go int Documentation/vm/hugetlb$foo
> file. Care to send it as a patch please?
Sure
There is some incomplete information in the document, so I will make
some revisions and then send out as patch later this week.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists