Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:33:09 +0800 | Subject | Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] mm: add new syscall pidfd_set_mempolicy(). | From | Zhongkun He <> |
| |
Hi Michal, thanks for your replay and suggestions.
> > Yes the memory consumption is going to increase but the question is > whether this is something that is a real problem. Is it really common to > have many vmas with a dedicated policy?
Yes, it does not a realy problem.
> > What I am arguing here is that there are essentially 2 ways forward. > Either we continue to build up on top of the existing and arguably very > fragile code and make it even more subtle or follow a general pattern of > a proper reference counting (with usual tricks to reduce cache line > bouncing and similar issues). I do not really see why memory policies > should be any different and require very special treatment. >
I got it. It is rather subtle and easy to get wrong if we push forward with the existing way and it is a good opportunity to get from the existing subtle model. I will try that on next version.
__ Best Regards, Zhongkun
| |