On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 08:14:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hm. I'm confused here. Do we have any limit forced per-user?
>>
>> Sure we do. See "struct user_st
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 08:14:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
> >
> > Hm. I'm confused here. Do we have any limit forced per-user?
>
> Sure we do. See "struct user_struct". We limit max number of
> processes, open files, signals etc.
Hi Andi,
On 12 May 2014 05:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Here is a note from the PyPy project (mentioned earlier in this
>> thread, and at https://lwn.net/Articles/587923/ ).
>
> Your use is completely bogus. remap_file_pages() pins everything
> and disables any swapping for the area.
? No. Trying t
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Armin Rigo writes:
>
>> Here is a note from the PyPy project (mentioned earlier in this
>> thread, and at https://lwn.net/Articles/587923/ ).
>
> Your use is completely bogus. remap_file_pages() pins everything
> and disables any swapping for t
Armin Rigo writes:
> Here is a note from the PyPy project (mentioned earlier in this
> thread, and at https://lwn.net/Articles/587923/ ).
Your use is completely bogus. remap_file_pages() pins everything
and disables any swapping for the area.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myse
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 08:14:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
> >
> > Hm. I'm confused here. Do we have any limit forced per-user?
>
> Sure we do. See "struct user_struct". We limit max number of
> processes, open files, signals etc.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
> Hm. I'm confused here. Do we have any limit forced per-user?
Sure we do. See "struct user_struct". We limit max number of
processes, open files, signals etc.
> I only see things like rlimits which are copied from parrent.
> Is it what
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
> >
> >> i.e. if you remove or
> >> emulate remap_file_pages(), please increase the default limit as well.
> >
> > It's fine to me. Andrew?
>
> Not Andrew, but one thing we might look at is to make the limit
> per
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
>> i.e. if you remove or
>> emulate remap_file_pages(), please increase the default limit as well.
>
> It's fine to me. Andrew?
Not Andrew, but one thing we might look at is to make the limit
per-user rather than per-vm.
Because the vma
Armin Rigo wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Here is a note from the PyPy project (mentioned earlier in this
> thread, and at https://lwn.net/Articles/587923/ ).
>
> Yes, we use remap_file_pages() heavily on the x86-64 architecture.
> However, the individual calls to remap_file_pages() are not
> perform
Hi everybody,
Here is a note from the PyPy project (mentioned earlier in this
thread, and at https://lwn.net/Articles/587923/ ).
Yes, we use remap_file_pages() heavily on the x86-64 architecture.
However, the individual calls to remap_file_pages() are not
performance-critical, so it is easy to sw
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
wrote:
>
> The second patch replaces remap_file_pages(2) with and emulation. I didn't
> find any real code (apart LTP) to test it on. So I wrote simple test case.
> See commit message for numbers.
I'm certainly ok with this. It removes code even
Hi Andrew and Linus,
These two patches demonstrate how we can get rid nonlinear mappings.
The first patch documents remap_file_pages(2) deprecation and add printk
into syscall code. The patch could be propagated through stable kernel if
the approach with remap_file_pages() emulation is okay.
The
13 matches
Mail list logo
