Re: objrmap-core-1 (rmap removal for file mappings to avoid 4:4 in <=16G machines)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:

> I agree that works fine for Oracle, that's becase Oracle is an extreme
> special case since most of this shared memory is an I/O cache, this is
> not the case of other apps, and those other apps really depends on the
> kernel vm paging algorithms for things more than istantiating a pte
> (or a pmd if it's a largepage). Other apps can't use mlock. Some of
> these apps works closely with oracle too.

what other apps use gigs of shared memory where that shared memory is
not an IO cache?

> dropping pte_chains through mlock was suggested around april 2003
> originally by Wli and I didn't like that idea since we really want to
> allow swapping if we run short of ram. [...]

dropping pte_chains on mlock() we implemented in RHEL3 and it works fine
to reduce the pte_chain overhead for those extreme shm users.

mind you, it still doesnt make high-end DB workloads viable on 32 GB
systems. (and no, not due to the pte_chain overhead.) 3:1 is simply not
enough at 32 GB and higher [possibly much ealier, for other workloads]. 
Trying to argue otherwise is sticking your head into the sand.

most of the anti-rmap sentiment (not this patch - this patch looks OK at
first sight, except the increase in struct page) is really backwards.
The right solution is to have rmap which is a _per page_ overhead and
the clear path to a mostly O(1) VM logic. Then we can increase the page
size (pgcl) to scale down the rmap overhead (both the per-page and the
locking overhead). What's so hard about this concept? Simple and
flexible data structure.

the x86 highmem issues are a quickly fading transient in history.

	Ingo