From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM ATTEND] persistent transparent large Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:24:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20140128193833.GD20939@parisc-linux.org> <1390943052.16253.31.camel@dabdike> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Hugh Dickins , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org To: James Bottomley Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1390943052.16253.31.camel@dabdike> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: > > Then there's the meta problem of is XIP the right approach. Using > persistence within the current memory address space as XIP is a natural > fit for mixed volatile/NV systems, but what happens when they're all NV > memory? Should we be discussing some VM based handling mechanisms for > persistent memory? Yes (but at present there's nothing on the table: is the cupboard bare?) Sorry, answer devoid of content, but since it's my thread... Hugh -- 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