From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx158.postini.com [74.125.245.158]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09FA66B0074 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:37:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50A3E4F7.5010807@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:37:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched, numa, mm: Count WS scanning against present PTEs, not virtual memory ranges References: <1352883029-7885-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <1352883029-7885-2-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1352883029-7885-2-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Hugh Dickins On 11/14/2012 03:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > From: Peter Zijlstra > > By accounting against the present PTEs, scanning speed reflects the > actual present (mapped) memory. > > For this we modify mm/mprotect.c::change_protection() to return the > number of ptes modified. (No change in functionality.) We need to figure out what we actually want here. Do we want to mark 256MB as non-present, or do we want to leave behind 256MB of non-present (NUMA) memory? :) -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423198Ab2KNSiJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:38:09 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15005 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423146Ab2KNSiI (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:38:08 -0500 Message-ID: <50A3E4F7.5010807@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:37:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched, numa, mm: Count WS scanning against present PTEs, not virtual memory ranges References: <1352883029-7885-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <1352883029-7885-2-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1352883029-7885-2-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/14/2012 03:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > From: Peter Zijlstra > > By accounting against the present PTEs, scanning speed reflects the > actual present (mapped) memory. > > For this we modify mm/mprotect.c::change_protection() to return the > number of ptes modified. (No change in functionality.) We need to figure out what we actually want here. Do we want to mark 256MB as non-present, or do we want to leave behind 256MB of non-present (NUMA) memory? :) -- All rights reversed