[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58560256-58da-4fa6-a953-d2c4695ffba8@lucifer.local>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:57:11 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, Jakub Matena <matenajakub@...il.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] mm/mremap: introduce more mergeable mremap via
MREMAP_RELOCATE_ANON
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:45:53AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> mremap() is already an expensive operation ... so I think we need a pretty
> convincing case to make this configurable by the user at all for each
> individual mremap() invocation.
My measurements suggest, unless you hit a very unfortunate case of -huge
faulted in range all mapped PTE- that the work involved is not all that
much more substantial in terms of order of magnitude than a normal mremap()
operation.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists