From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
mgorman@suse.de, mingo@kernel.org, steven@uplinklabs.net,
riel@redhat.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
xemul@parallels.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] mm: pgtable -- Require X86_64 for soft-dirty tracker
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 09:28:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53690D97.50401@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140425082042.848656782@openvz.org>
On 04/25/2014 01:10 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Tracking dirty status on 2 level pages requires very ugly macros
> and taking into account how old the machines who can operate
> without PAE mode only are, lets drop soft dirty tracker from
> them for code simplicity (note I can't drop all the macros
> from 2 level pages by now since _PAGE_BIT_PROTNONE and
> _PAGE_BIT_FILE are still used even without tracker).
>
> Linus proposed to completely rip off softdirty support on
> x86-32 (even with PAE) and since for CRIU we're not planning
> to support native x86-32 mode, lets do that.
>
> (Softdirty tracker is relatively new feature which mostly used
> by CRIU so I don't expect if such API change would cause problems
> on userspace).
I have to wonder which one is more likely to actually matter on whatever
legacy 32-bit are going to remain. This pretty much comes down to what
kind of advanced features are going to matter in deep embedded
applications in the future: checkpoint/restart or NUMA. My guess is
that it is actually checkpoint/restart...
How much does it actually simplify to leave this feature in for PAE? I
could care less about non-PAE... NX has pretty much killed that off cold.
-hpa
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
mgorman@suse.de, mingo@kernel.org, steven@uplinklabs.net,
riel@redhat.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
xemul@parallels.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] mm: pgtable -- Require X86_64 for soft-dirty tracker
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 09:28:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53690D97.50401@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140425082042.848656782@openvz.org>
On 04/25/2014 01:10 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Tracking dirty status on 2 level pages requires very ugly macros
> and taking into account how old the machines who can operate
> without PAE mode only are, lets drop soft dirty tracker from
> them for code simplicity (note I can't drop all the macros
> from 2 level pages by now since _PAGE_BIT_PROTNONE and
> _PAGE_BIT_FILE are still used even without tracker).
>
> Linus proposed to completely rip off softdirty support on
> x86-32 (even with PAE) and since for CRIU we're not planning
> to support native x86-32 mode, lets do that.
>
> (Softdirty tracker is relatively new feature which mostly used
> by CRIU so I don't expect if such API change would cause problems
> on userspace).
I have to wonder which one is more likely to actually matter on whatever
legacy 32-bit are going to remain. This pretty much comes down to what
kind of advanced features are going to matter in deep embedded
applications in the future: checkpoint/restart or NUMA. My guess is
that it is actually checkpoint/restart...
How much does it actually simplify to leave this feature in for PAE? I
could care less about non-PAE... NX has pretty much killed that off cold.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-06 16:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-25 8:10 [patch 0/2] A few simplifications for softdirty memory tracker code Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-04-25 8:10 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-04-25 8:10 ` [patch 1/2] mm: pgtable -- Drop unneeded preprocessor ifdef Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-04-25 8:10 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-04-25 8:10 ` [patch 2/2] mm: pgtable -- Require X86_64 for soft-dirty tracker Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-04-25 8:10 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-05-05 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2014-05-05 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2014-05-06 8:25 ` [patch 2/2] mm: pgtable -- Require X86_64 for soft-dirty tracker, v2 Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-05-06 8:25 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-05-06 16:28 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2014-05-06 16:28 ` [patch 2/2] mm: pgtable -- Require X86_64 for soft-dirty tracker H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-06 17:03 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-05-06 17:03 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53690D97.50401@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=steven@uplinklabs.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xemul@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.