Re: [RFC 1/7] mm: Add new vma flag VM_LOCAL_CPU

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:49:35PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > Erm ... there's nothing wrong with having one pipe per CPU.  But pipes
> > being non-seekable means that ZUFS can only handle synchronous I/Os.
> > If you want to have a network backend, then you'd only be able to have
> > one outstanding network request per pipe, which is really going to suck
> > for bandwidth.
> 
> I guess ZUFS is mostly about fast synchronous access (please correct
> me if I'm wrong).  Not sure that model fits network filesystems, where
> performance of caching will dominate real life performance.

I'm sure that's Boaz's use case ;-)  But if we're introducing
a replacement for FUSE, let's make it better than FUSE, not just
specialised to Boaz's use case.  Also, networks aren't necessarily slow;
some of us live in a world where the other end-point on the "network"
is *usually* the hypervisor, or a different guest on the same piece of
physical hardware.  Not to mention that 400Gbps ethernet is almost upon
us (standard approved four months ago) and PCIe Gen 4 is only 256Gbps
with a x16 link.