From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EE06B0036 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:25:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id kx10so947549pab.35 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:25:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sz7si73251pab.232.2014.01.28.14.25.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id rd3so951586pab.2 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:24:34 -0800 (PST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM ATTEND] persistent transparent large In-Reply-To: <1390943052.16253.31.camel@dabdike> Message-ID: References: <20140128193833.GD20939@parisc-linux.org> <1390943052.16253.31.camel@dabdike> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: James Bottomley Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Hugh Dickins , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, James Bottomley wrote: > > Then there's the meta problem of is XIP the right approach. Using > persistence within the current memory address space as XIP is a natural > fit for mixed volatile/NV systems, but what happens when they're all NV > memory? Should we be discussing some VM based handling mechanisms for > persistent memory? Yes (but at present there's nothing on the table: is the cupboard bare?) Sorry, answer devoid of content, but since it's my thread... Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org