Rik van Riel's vm-rmap
Does he still use classzones as the basis for the vm? I thought that linux was trying to get away from classzones for better NUMA support in 2.5??
--Louis
Quoted 3 lines · Louis Garcia
Does he still use classzones as the basis for the vm? I thought that linux was trying to get away from classzones for better NUMA support in 2.5??
rmap does not use the classzone concept.
Cheers,
Bill
Quoted 3 lines · Louis Garcia
Does he still use classzones as the basis for the vm? I thought that linux was trying to get away from classzones for better NUMA support in 2.5??
Nope. I've done a few modifications:
1) the IMHO inflexible classzone stuff has been removed
2) we have reverse mappings, so we can do our pageout scan by physical address
3) this in turn means the active, inactive_dirty and inactive_clean lists are per zone ... allowing us to scan only in those zones where we actually need to free pages
regards,
Rik
Signature · 4 lines
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/Does this patch work well with Andrew's low-latency patch?
--Louis
Quoted 27 lines · Rik van Riel
Quoted 3 lines · Louis Garcia
Does he still use classzones as the basis for the vm? I thought that linux was trying to get away from classzones for better NUMA support in 2.5??
Nope. I've done a few modifications:
1) the IMHO inflexible classzone stuff has been removed
2) we have reverse mappings, so we can do our pageout scan by physical address
3) this in turn means the active,
inactive_dirtyandinactive_cleanlists are per zone ... allowing us to scan only in those zones where we actually need to free pagesregards,
Rik
Signature · 4 lines
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Quoted 1 line · Louis Garcia
Does this patch work well with Andrew's low-latency patch?
There will be failed hunks in the VM code (specifically vmscan.c), but you can safely ignore them. So, yes, it works.
Robert Love
Should I do the rmap patch first?
--Louis
Quoted 8 lines · Robert Love
Quoted 1 line · Louis Garcia
Does this patch work well with Andrew's low-latency patch?
There will be failed hunks in the VM code (specifically
vmscan.c), but you can safely ignore them. So, yes, it works.Robert Love
Quoted 1 line · Louis Garcia
Should I do the rmap patch first?
Yes, if Andrew's low-latency patch fails you just lose the scheduling points in vmscan.c (big deal). If rmap half applies... ouch.
So apply rmap first.
Robert Love
Quoted 1 line · Louis Garcia
Should I do the rmap patch first?
Yes.
After that you can patch the low latency patch,
which will give you a reject on vmscan.c
This doesn't matter because:
1) each part of the low latency patch is independant
2) -rmap already has low latency code in vmscan.c
kind regards,
Rik
Signature · 4 lines
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/Ok, has anyone ported the latest patch to 2.4.18-pre7 yet??
--Louis
Quoted 22 lines · Rik van Riel
Quoted 1 line · Louis Garcia
Should I do the rmap patch first?
Yes.
After that you can patch the low latency patch,
which will give you a reject onvmscan.cThis doesn't matter because:
1) each part of the low latency patch is independant
2) -rmap already has low latency code invmscan.ckind regards,
Rik
Signature · 4 lines
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/