On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Till Smejkal wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Why do we need yet another mechanism to represent something which looks
> > > like a file instead of simply using existing mechanisms and extend them?
> >
>
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Till Smejkal wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Why do we need yet another mechanism to represent something which looks
> > like a file instead of simply using existing mechanisms and extend them?
>
> You are right. I also recognized during the discussion
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Why do we need yet another mechanism to represent something which looks
> like a file instead of simply using existing mechanisms and extend them?
You are right. I also recognized during the discussion with Andy, Chris,
Matthew,
Luck, Rich and the oth
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:02:34PM -0700, Till Smejkal wrote:
> > I don't agree here. VAS segments are basically in-memory files that are
> > handled by
> > the kernel directly without using a file system. Hence, if an application
> > uses a VAS
> > segmen
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Till Smejkal wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > VAS segments on the other side would provide a functionality to
> > > achieve the same without the need of any mounted filesystem. However,
> > > I agree, that this is just a small advantage compared to wh
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Till Smejkal
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Till Smejkal
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> This sounds rather complicated. Getting TLB flushing right seems
>> >> tricky. Why
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:02:34PM -0700, Till Smejkal wrote:
> I don't agree here. VAS segments are basically in-memory files that are
> handled by
> the kernel directly without using a file system. Hence, if an application
> uses a VAS
> segment to store data the same rules apply as if it uses
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:51:31AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > VAS segments on the other side allow sharing of pure in memory data by
> > arbitrary related tasks without the need of a file. This becomes especially
> > interesting if one combines VAS segments with non-volatile memory since one
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:44:47PM -0700, Till Smejkal wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > One advantage of VAS segments is that they can be globally queried by
> > > > user programs
> > > > which means that VAS segments can be s
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:44:47PM -0700, Till Smejkal wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > One advantage of VAS segments is that they can be globally queried by
> > > user programs
> > > which means that VAS segments can be shared by applications that not
> > > necessarily
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > One advantage of VAS segments is that they can be globally queried by user
> > programs
> > which means that VAS segments can be shared by applications that not
> > necessarily have
> > to be related. If I am not mistaken, MAP_SHARED of pure in memo
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Till Smejkal
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > One advantage of VAS segments is that they can be globally queried by
> >> > user programs
> >> > which means that VAS segments can be share
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Till Smejkal
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > One advantage of VAS segments is that they can be globally queried by user
>> > programs
>> > which means that VAS segments can be shared by applications that not
>> > necessarily have
>> > t
On 3/14/2017 12:12 PM, Till Smejkal wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Till Smejkal
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
This sounds rather complicated. Getting TLB flushing right seems
tricky. Why not just map the same thing in
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 3/14/2017 12:12 PM, Till Smejkal wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Till Smejkal
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > This sounds rather complicated. Get
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Till Smejkal
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> This sounds rather complicated. Getting TLB flushing right seems
> >> tricky. Why not just map the same thing into multiple mms?
> >
> > This
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Till Smejkal
> wrote:
> > This patchset extends the kernel memory management subsystem with a new
> > type of address spaces (called VAS) which can be created and destroyed
> > independently of processes by a user in th
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Till Smejkal
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> This sounds rather complicated. Getting TLB flushing right seems
>> tricky. Why not just map the same thing into multiple mms?
>
> This is exactly what happens at the end. The memory region that
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 10:39 AM, Till Smejkal wrote:
> > > Is this an indication that full virtual address spaces are useless? It
> > > would seem like if you only use virtual address segments then you avoid
> > > all
> > > of the problems with executing cod
On 03/14/2017 10:39 AM, Till Smejkal wrote:
Is this an indication that full virtual address spaces are useless? It
would seem like if you only use virtual address segments then you avoid all
of the problems with executing code, active stacks, and brk.
What do you mean with *virtual address seg
On 03/14/2017 08:14 AM, Till Smejkal wrote:
At the current state of the development, first class virtual address spaces
have one limitation, that we haven't been able to solve so far. The feature
allows, that different threads of the same process can execute in different
AS at the same time. This
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 08:14 AM, Till Smejkal wrote:
> > At the current state of the development, first class virtual address spaces
> > have one limitation, that we haven't been able to solve so far. The feature
> > allows, that different threads of the same
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Till Smejkal
wrote:
> This patchset extends the kernel memory management subsystem with a new
> type of address spaces (called VAS) which can be created and destroyed
> independently of processes by a user in the system. During its lifetime
> such a VAS can be atta
First class virtual address spaces (also called VAS) are a new functionality of
the Linux kernel allowing address spaces to exist independently of processes.
The general idea behind this feature is described in a paper at ASPLOS16 with
the title 'SpaceJMP: Programming with Multiple Virtual Address
24 matches
Mail list logo
