[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal
From: |
Neal H. Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:16:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (UnebigoryĆmae) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:07:02 -0400,
Neal H. Walfield <neal@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>
> At 17 Aug 2004 02:51:37 -0700,
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@cs.uml.edu> writes:
> >
> > > > Just a small techical correction: we remove mapping only when we are
> > > > remapping page to contain another block. So when page is evicted, it
> > > > continues to map the same disk block until ext2fs decides that we want
> > > > this page to hold another block (only if page is still evicted, of
> > > > course).
> > >
> > > Well, I think we ought to drain the mapping cache when the page is
> > > evicted. This keeps memory usage lower. Further, relative to the
> > > cost of reading from disk, adding an entry to the hashes, etc. is
> > > cheap.
> >
> > I'm confused. It sounded like Ognyan was saying that the page is
> > still assigned to the same area. But it is necessary to vm_free when
> > the kernel tells you to page out. It is unfriendly (and very bad for
> > performance) to hold on to the page.
I was slightly confused as well. The page is and remains being
unmapped in my proposal by an munmap in libpager/data-return.c. What
Ogi has not done, I think, is to remove the association between the
virtual address and the disk blocks which I think ought to be done.
Neal
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, (continued)
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Ognyan Kulev, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal,
Neal H. Walfield <=
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/16
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/16
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17