On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 22-06-15 10:18:06, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri 19-06-15 12:43:33, Eric B Munson wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Are you objecting to the addition of the VMA flag VM_LOCKONFAULT, or the
> > > > new MAP_
On Tue 23-06-15 14:45:17, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 06/22/2015 04:18 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri 19-06-15 12:43:33, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
> >>>My thought on detecting was that someone might want to know if they had
> >>>a VMA that was V
On Mon 22-06-15 10:18:06, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Fri 19-06-15 12:43:33, Eric B Munson wrote:
[...]
> > > Are you objecting to the addition of the VMA flag VM_LOCKONFAULT, or the
> > > new MAP_LOCKONFAULT flag (or both)?
> >
> > I thought the MAP_
On 06/22/2015 04:18 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 19-06-15 12:43:33, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 18-06-15 16:30:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Wouldn't it be much m
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 19-06-15 12:43:33, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu 18-06-15 16:30:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Wouldn't it be much more reasonabl
On Fri 19-06-15 12:43:33, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Thu 18-06-15 16:30:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Wouldn't it be much more reasonable and straightforward to have
> > > > MAP_FAULTPOPULATE
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 18-06-15 16:30:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Wouldn't it be much more reasonable and straightforward to have
> > > MAP_FAULTPOPULATE as a counterpart for MAP_POPULATE which would
> > > explicitl
On Thu 18-06-15 16:30:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Wouldn't it be much more reasonable and straightforward to have
> > MAP_FAULTPOPULATE as a counterpart for MAP_POPULATE which would
> > explicitly disallow any form of pre-faulting? It would be usabl
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Sorry for the late reply - I meant to answer in the previous threads
> but something always preempted me from that]
>
> On Wed 10-06-15 09:26:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
> > working
[Sorry for the late reply - I meant to answer in the previous threads
but something always preempted me from that]
On Wed 10-06-15 09:26:48, Eric B Munson wrote:
> The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
> working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping
The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
For the example of a large file, this is the usage pattern for a large
statical language model (probably appli
11 matches
Mail list logo
