From 957cba89001d8d06e681ca493500209c5a151464 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:50:54 +0200 Subject: IRC. --- open_issues/gnumach_memory_management.mdwn | 29 ++++++++++++++++ .../io_system/clustered_page_faults.mdwn | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'open_issues') diff --git a/open_issues/gnumach_memory_management.mdwn b/open_issues/gnumach_memory_management.mdwn index f15c4d25..448aafcc 100644 --- a/open_issues/gnumach_memory_management.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/gnumach_memory_management.mdwn @@ -894,3 +894,32 @@ There is a [[!FF_project 266]][[!tag bounty]] on this task. ok it's tricky mcsim: try to find where the first use of the allocator is made + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-22 + + braunr, hello. Kernel with your allocator already compiles and + runs. There still some problems, but, certainly, I'm on the final stage + already. I hope I'll finish in a few days. + mcsim: Oh, cool! Have you done some measurements already? + Not yet + OK. + But if it able to run a GNU/Hurd system, then that already is + something, a big milestone! + nice + although you'll probably need to tweak the garbage collecting + process + tschwinge: thanks + braunr: As back-end for allocating memory I use + kmem_alloc_wired. But in zalloc was an opportunity to use as back-end + kmem_alloc_pageable. Although there was no any zone that used + kmem_alloc_pageable. Do I need to implement this functionality? + mcsim: do *not* use kmem_alloc_pageable() + braunr: Ok. This is even better) + mcsim: in x15, i've taken this even further: there is *no* kernel + vm object, which means all kernel memory is wired and unmanaged + making it fast and safe + pageable kernel memory was useful back when RAM was really scarce + 20 years ago + but it's a source of deadlock + Indeed. I'll won't use kmem_alloc_pageable. diff --git a/open_issues/performance/io_system/clustered_page_faults.mdwn b/open_issues/performance/io_system/clustered_page_faults.mdwn index 37433e06..9e20f8e1 100644 --- a/open_issues/performance/io_system/clustered_page_faults.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/performance/io_system/clustered_page_faults.mdwn @@ -12,7 +12,10 @@ License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[community/gsoc/project_ideas/disk_io_performance]]. -IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-16 +[[!toc]] + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-16 exceptfor the kernel, everything in an address space is represented with a VM object @@ -88,9 +91,8 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-16 recommend* ok ---- -IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-16 +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-16 etenil: OSF Mach does have clustered paging BTW; so that's one place to start looking... @@ -103,3 +105,35 @@ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-02-16 can serve as a starting point + + +# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-22 + + but concerning clustered pagins/outs, i'm not sure it's a mach + interface limitation + the external memory pager interface does allow multiple pages to + be transfered + isn't it an internal Mach VM problem ? + isn't it simply the page fault handler ? + braunr: are you sure? I was under the impression that changing the + pager interface was among the requirements... + hm... I wonder whether for pageins, it could actually be handled + in the pages instead of Mach... though this wouldn't work for pageouts, + so probably not very helpful + err... in the pagers + antrik: i'm almost sure + but i've be proven wrong many times, so .. + there are two main facts that lead me to think this + 1/ + http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/Memory-Objects-and-Data.html#Memory-Objects-and-Data + says lengths are provided and doesn't mention the limitation + 2/ when reading about UVM, one of the major improvements (between + 10 and 30% of global performance depending on the benchmarks) was + implementing the madvise semantics + and this didn't involve a new pager interface, but rather a new + page fault handler + braunr: hm... the interface indeed looks like it can handle + multiple pages in both directions... perhaps it was at the Hurd level + where the pager interface needs to be modified, not the Mach one?... + antrik: would be nice wouldn't it ? :) + antrik: more probably the page fault handler -- cgit v1.2.3