On 01/06/2017 08:36 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 01/06/2017 07:32 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
I agree with you on simplicity first. Subpage granularity is complex,
but the architecture allows for subpage granularity. Maybe the right
approach is to support this at page granularity first for swappable
pages and then expand to subpage granularity in a subsequent patch?
Pages locked in memory can already use subpage granularity with my patch.
What do you mean by "locked in memory"? mlock()'d memory can still be
migrated around and still requires "swap" ptes, for instance.
You are right. Page migration can invalidate subpage granularity even
for locked pages. Is it possible to use cpusets to keep a task and its
memory locked on a single node? Just wondering if there are limited
cases where subpage granularity could work without supporting subpage
granularity for tags in swap. It still sounds like the right thing to do
is to get a reliable implementation in place with page size granularity
and then add the complexity of subpage granularity.
Thanks,
Khalid
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>