>> Something like this (see patch in attachment) > > THP is not covered. > > Any comments on kcmp() idea? It seems like a modified kcmp() would also be a valid approach but, as you noted, probably speed-limited for our purposes. As you say, there is the option of a vector-oriented equivalent. It seems like a generally nice facility to have available in the kernel but my suspicion is that it wouldn't be optimal for us... My thinking is that using soft-dirty might give us the best performance on platforms where it's available. We're only using fork() as a cunning/hacky way of tracking what pages change; soft-dirty would allow us to avoid that too, whereas using kcmp() would still require the forking overhead. Does that make sense, or have I missed something? Thanks, Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
