From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E85C432BE for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C76D61054 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:33:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 8C76D61054 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B764E8D0001; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B270B6B0071; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:33:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A14BE8D0001; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:33:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0073.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.73]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929826B006C for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3392B27DD0 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:33:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78538794600.12.D985709 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED5AD0000AB for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:33:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=+dQK5IdXVw1yYS5o1jTuz3XuwDlTgndYHGD+Wfsq0ms=; b=tJ7GqxWClGIuXimww6oVVwdOwZ bEcpqk2eh+HJaRGutpm3ntp9EL7HJViLBto4AnIBKwTw5GW0I6i3HGgfIPBOrCHpl7Ycfvf1JLYu5 WK1/MvmCmy9cMxl8l9A2Xi8cB7ISZw+jm39i0uC2ehzoSvDrCStqQ1dxJwHZhDwlAVWbvBzd11jUh YKrU3OA+mEi8rtu6FMi5YPygRmWqKXTIv+AeZ2zoT5WJJiZ2fLPu6aR+pOk9B+H6r8QSJHS30MTY/ mSDQ0mtOSzcCA4KxvP30fMSxsXs6jvncU96COKT48mXxEIUuI4O4rVVqmRiVW0NrJlra1otklChW5 tRNFgGqA==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mLOTj-002Ev2-Ni; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 11:32:38 +0000 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:32:27 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Huang Shijie Cc: Shijie Huang , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frank Wang Subject: Re: Is it possible to implement the per-node page cache for programs/libraries? Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CED5AD0000AB Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=tJ7GqxWC; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Stat-Signature: ad1as8iooo85fp439mj9c3bjqores3z8 X-HE-Tag: 1630496019-58091 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:25:34PM +0000, Huang Shijie wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:30:45PM +0000, Huang Shijie wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:25:01AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:07:41AM +0800, Shijie Huang wrote: > > > > In the NUMA, we only have one page cache for each file. For the > > > > program/shared libraries, the > > > > remote-access delays longer then the local-access. > > > > > > > > So, is it possible to implement the per-node page cache for > > > > programs/libraries? > > > > > > At this point, we have no way to support text replication within a > > > process. So what you're suggesting (if implemented) would work for > > > > I created a glibc patch which can do the text replication within a process. > The "text replication" means the shared libraries, not program itself. Is it really worthwhile to do only the shared libraries?