From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964966AbWFHUKR (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964963AbWFHUKP (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:15 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.224]:27093 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964967AbWFHUKM (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:10:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tiIyqjfGLV6lZrpq+BnvqfYwMxUkB/BoCy3Ksp7dB/cxTbc0jJjwTwTwCBr6j66dSdKnJZgT5DvIPM3ZkITTtSsmzl0l+rQpq7TDastQ0D4DajMI6BpaDf/R0tozgJvJImPKg5pK84r1A1Unvq5hXYt6b4Bu2p6S5OkUOEgGnE0= Message-ID: <5c49b0ed0606081310q5771e8d1s55acef09b405922b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:10:11 -0700 From: "Nate Diller" To: "Peter Zijlstra" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: tracking dirty pages -v6 Cc: "Hugh Dickins" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , "David Howells" , "Christoph Lameter" , "Martin Bligh" , "Nick Piggin" , "Linus Torvalds" In-Reply-To: <1149770654.4408.71.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060525135534.20941.91650.sendpatchset@lappy> <1149770654.4408.71.camel@lappy> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/8/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > From: Peter Zijlstra > > People expressed the need to track dirty pages in shared mappings. > > Linus outlined the general idea of doing that through making clean > writable pages write-protected and taking the write fault. > > This patch does exactly that, it makes pages in a shared writable > mapping write-protected. On write-fault the pages are marked dirty and > made writable. When the pages get synced with their backing store, the > write-protection is re-instated. Does this mean that processes dirtying pages via mmap are now subject to write throttling? That could dramatically change the performance for tasks with a working set larger than 10% of memory. NATE