On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Antonio Vargas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 10:22:46AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > >> Ah, you probably don't want to do that ... it's very expensive. Moreover,
> > >> if you exec 2ns later, all the effort will be wasted ... and it's very
> > >> hard to deterministically predict whether you'll exec or not (stupid
> > >> UNIX semantics). Doing it lazily is probably best, and as to "nodes
> > >> would not have to reference the memory from others" - you're still
> > >> doing that, you're just batching it on the front end.
> > >
> > > True... What about a vma-level COW-ahead just like we have a file-level
> > > read-ahead, then? I mean batching the COW at unCOW-because-of-write time.
> >
> > That'd be interesting ... and you can test that on a UP box, is not just
> > NUMA. Depends on the workload quite heavily, I suspect.
> >
> > > btw, COW-ahead sound really silly :)
> >
> > Yeah. So be sure to call it that if it works out ... we need more things
> > like that ;-) Moooooo.
>
> What about the attached one? I'm compiling it right now to test in UML :)
>
> [ snip fake-NUMA-on-SMP discussion ]
>
OK, too quick for me... this next one applies, compiles and boots on 2.5.66 + uml.
Now I wonder how can I test if this is useful... ideas?
Greets, Antonio.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:32 EST