On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:36 PM David Nellans wrote: > > > > On 01/06/2017 04:29 PM, Till Smejkal wrote: > > > Dear Linux MM community > > > > > > My name is Till Smejkal and I am a PhD Student at Hewlett Packard Enterprise. For a > > > couple of weeks I have been working on a patchset for the Linux kernel which > > > introduces a new functionality that allows address spaces to be first class citizens > > > in the OS. The implementation is based on a concept presented in this [1] paper. > > > > > > The basic idea of the patchset is that an AS not necessarily needs to be coupled with > > > a process but can be created and destroyed independently. A process still has its own > > > AS which is created with the process and which also gets destroyed with the process, > > > but in addition there can be other AS in the OS which are not bound to the lifetime > > > of any process. These additional AS have to be created and destroyed actively by the > > > user and can be attached to a process as additional AS. Attaching such an AS to a > > > process allows the process to have different views on the memory between which the > > > process can switch arbitrarily during its executing. > > > > > > This feature can be used in various different ways. For example to compartmentalize a > > > process for security reasons or to improve the performance of data-centric > > > applications. > > > > > > However, before I intend to submit the patchset to LKML, I first like to perform > > > some benchmarks to identify possible performance drawbacks introduced by my changes > > > to the original memory management architecture. Hence, I would like to ask if anyone > > > of you could point me to some benchmarks which I can run to test my patchset and > > > compare it against the original implementation. > > > > > > If there are any questions, please feel free to ask me. I am happy to answer any > > > question related to the patchset and its idea/intention. > > > > > > Regards > > > Till > > > > > > P.S.: Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to this mailing list. > > > > > > [1] http://impact.crhc.illinois.edu/shared/Papers/ASPLOS16-SpaceJMP.pdf > > > > https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests > > > And please take a look at linux-4.9/tools/testing/selftests/vm. > > The last resort seems to ask Mel on linux-mm for > howtos he knows. > Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Good luck > Hillf Hi David and Hillf, Thank you very much for your feedback. Both of your suggestions were very helpful. I could find some bugs in my implementation and also identified two minor performance problems that I could fix easily. Thanks, Till -- 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>
