Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1615133 > unrolled thread

Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM,ATTEND] shared TLB, hugetlb reservations

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM,ATTEND] shared TLB, hugetlb reservations Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-04-03 14:00 +0200
    Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM,ATTEND] shared TLB, hugetlb reservations Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> - 2017-04-03 18:30 +0200
      Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM,ATTEND] shared TLB, hugetlb reservations Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-04-03 19:00 +0200

#1615133 — Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC][LSF/MM,ATTEND] shared TLB, hugetlb reservations

On Wed 08-03-17 17:30:55, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 01/10/2017 03:02 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > Another more concrete topic is hugetlb reservations.  Michal Hocko
> > proposed the topic "mm patches review bandwidth", and brought up the
> > related subject of areas in need of attention from an architectural
> > POV.  I suggested that hugetlb reservations was one such area.  I'm
> > guessing it was introduced to solve a rather concrete problem.  However,
> > over time additional hugetlb functionality was added and the
> > capabilities of the reservation code was stretched to accommodate.
> > It would be good to step back and take a look at the design of this
> > code to determine if a rewrite/redesign is necessary.  Michal suggested
> > documenting the current design/code as a first step.  If people think
> > this is worth discussion at the summit, I could put together such a
> > design before the gathering.
> 
> I attempted to put together a design/overview of how hugetlb reservations
> currently work.  Hopefully, this will be useful.

I am still too busy to read through this carefuly and provide a useful
feedback but I believe this should go int Documentation/vm/hugetlb$foo
file. Care to send it as a patch please?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615395

On 04/03/2017 04:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-03-17 17:30:55, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 01/10/2017 03:02 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> Another more concrete topic is hugetlb reservations.  Michal Hocko
>>> proposed the topic "mm patches review bandwidth", and brought up the
>>> related subject of areas in need of attention from an architectural
>>> POV.  I suggested that hugetlb reservations was one such area.  I'm
>>> guessing it was introduced to solve a rather concrete problem.  However,
>>> over time additional hugetlb functionality was added and the
>>> capabilities of the reservation code was stretched to accommodate.
>>> It would be good to step back and take a look at the design of this
>>> code to determine if a rewrite/redesign is necessary.  Michal suggested
>>> documenting the current design/code as a first step.  If people think
>>> this is worth discussion at the summit, I could put together such a
>>> design before the gathering.
>>
>> I attempted to put together a design/overview of how hugetlb reservations
>> currently work.  Hopefully, this will be useful.
> 
> I am still too busy to read through this carefuly and provide a useful
> feedback but I believe this should go int Documentation/vm/hugetlb$foo
> file. Care to send it as a patch please?

Sure

There is some incomplete information in the document, so I will make
some revisions and then send out as patch later this week.

-- 
Mike Kravetz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615426

On Mon 03-04-17 09:24:52, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 04:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 08-03-17 17:30:55, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2017 03:02 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> Another more concrete topic is hugetlb reservations.  Michal Hocko
> >>> proposed the topic "mm patches review bandwidth", and brought up the
> >>> related subject of areas in need of attention from an architectural
> >>> POV.  I suggested that hugetlb reservations was one such area.  I'm
> >>> guessing it was introduced to solve a rather concrete problem.  However,
> >>> over time additional hugetlb functionality was added and the
> >>> capabilities of the reservation code was stretched to accommodate.
> >>> It would be good to step back and take a look at the design of this
> >>> code to determine if a rewrite/redesign is necessary.  Michal suggested
> >>> documenting the current design/code as a first step.  If people think
> >>> this is worth discussion at the summit, I could put together such a
> >>> design before the gathering.
> >>
> >> I attempted to put together a design/overview of how hugetlb reservations
> >> currently work.  Hopefully, this will be useful.
> > 
> > I am still too busy to read through this carefuly and provide a useful
> > feedback but I believe this should go int Documentation/vm/hugetlb$foo
> > file. Care to send it as a patch please?
> 
> Sure
> 
> There is some incomplete information in the document, so I will make
> some revisions and then send out as patch later this week.

Thanks a lot. This is highly appreciated!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web