lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/19] mm: numa: Create basic numa page hinting infrastructure
On 11/07/2012 05:38 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 01:58:26PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 11/06/2012 04:14 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> Note: This patch started as "mm/mpol: Create special PROT_NONE
>>> infrastructure" and preserves the basic idea but steals *very*
>>> heavily from "autonuma: numa hinting page faults entry points" for
>>> the actual fault handlers without the migration parts. The end
>>> result is barely recognisable as either patch so all Signed-off
>>> and Reviewed-bys are dropped. If Peter, Ingo and Andrea are ok with
>>> this version, I will re-add the signed-offs-by to reflect the history.
>>>
>>> In order to facilitate a lazy -- fault driven -- migration of pages, create
>>> a special transient PAGE_NUMA variant, we can then use the 'spurious'
>>> protection faults to drive our migrations from.
>>>
>>> Pages that already had an effective PROT_NONE mapping will not be detected
>>
>> The patch itself is good, but the changelog needs a little
>> fix. While you are defining _PAGE_NUMA to _PAGE_PROTNONE on
>> x86, this may be different on other architectures.
>>
>> Therefore, the changelog should refer to PAGE_NUMA, not
>> PROT_NONE.
>>
>
> Fair point. I still want to record the point that PROT_NONE will not
> generate the faults though. How about this?
>
> In order to facilitate a lazy -- fault driven -- migration of pages, create
> a special transient PAGE_NUMA variant, we can then use the 'spurious'
> protection faults to drive our migrations from.
>
> The meaning of PAGE_NUMA depends on the architecture but on x86 it is
> effectively PROT_NONE. In this case, PROT_NONE mappings will not be detected
> to generate these 'spurious' faults for the simple reason that we cannot
> distinguish them on their protection bits, see pte_numa(). This isn't
> a problem since PROT_NONE (and possible PROT_WRITE with dirty tracking)
> aren't used or are rare enough for us to not care about their placement.

Actual PROT_NONE mappings will not generate these NUMA faults
for the reason that the page fault code checks the permission
on the VMA (and will throw a segmentation fault on actual
PROT_NONE mappings), before it ever calls handle_mm_fault.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-07 12:21    [W:0.078 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site