On (04/08/08 14:10), Dave Hansen didst pronounce:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:31 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > We are a lot more reliable than we were although exact quantification is
> > difficult because it's workload dependent. For a long time, I've been able
> > to test bits and pieces with hugepages by allocating the pool at the time
> > I needed it even after days of uptime. Previously this required a reboot.
> 
> This is also a pretty big expansion of fs/hugetlb/ use outside of the
> filesystem itself.  It is hacking the existing shared memory
> kernel-internal user to spit out effectively anonymous memory.
> 
> Where do we draw the line where we stop using the filesystem for this?
> Other than the immediate code reuse, does it gain us anything?
> 
> I have to think that actually refactoring the filesystem code and making
> it usable for really anonymous memory, then using *that* in these
> patches would be a lot more sane.  Especially for someone that goes to
> look at it in a year. :)
> 

See, that's great until you start dealing with MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS.
To get that right between children, you end up something very fs-like
when the child needs to fault in a page that is already populated by the
parent. I strongly suspect we end up back at hugetlbfs backing it :/

If you were going to do such a thing, you'd end up converting something
like ramfs to hugetlbfs and sharing that.


-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/