On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:20:47AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +09
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to
> From a user perspective, it doesn't depend on swap. It's just slower
> without swap because it does what MADV_DONTNEED does. The current
> implementation can be dropped in where MADV_DONTNEED was previously used.
It just wouldn't replace existing layers of purging logic until that
edge case is f
>>> It probably makes sense to stop thinking about them as anonymous pages
>>> entirely at this point when it comes to aging. They're really not. The
>>> LRU lists are split to differentiate access patterns and cost of page
>>> stealing (and restoring). From that angle, MADV_FREE pages really have
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:48:17PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > Even if we're wrong about the aging of those MADV_FREE pages, their
> > contents are invalidated; they can be discarded freely, and restoring
> > them is a mere GFP_ZERO allocation. All other anonymous pages have to
> > be written to
> Even if we're wrong about the aging of those MADV_FREE pages, their
> contents are invalidated; they can be discarded freely, and restoring
> them is a mere GFP_ZERO allocation. All other anonymous pages have to
> be written to disk, and potentially be read back.
>
> [ Arguably, MADV_FREE pages
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
> patch moves th
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:53:42AM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:52:23AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> > > pressure and we use reclaime
On Tue 03-11-15 09:52:23, Minchan Kim wrote:
[...]
> I believe adding new LRU list would be controversial(ie, not trivial)
> for maintainer POV even though code wouldn't be complicated.
> So, I want to see problems in *real practice*, not any theoritical
> test program before diving into that.
> To
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:22:12AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> > pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> > so there is no val
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:01:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> MADV_FREE is a hint that it's okay to discard pages if there is memory
> pressure and we use reclaimers(ie, kswapd and direct reclaim) to free them
> so there is no value keeping them in the active anonymous LRU so this
> patch moves th
12 matches
Mail list logo
