Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:17:25 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Shijie Huang <shijie@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        Frank Wang <zwang@amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: Is it possible to implement the per-node page cache for
 programs/libraries?
Message-ID: <YTCktV3KF9PzIACU@casper.infradead.org>
References: <a2f423cf-9413-6bc8-e4d8-92374fc0449e@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
 <YS7yjcqA6txFHd99@casper.infradead.org>
 <1630552995.2mupnzoqzs.astroid@bobo.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1630552995.2mupnzoqzs.astroid@bobo.none>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 01:25:36PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > I have been thinking about this a bit; one of our internal performance
> > teams flagged the potential performance win to me a few months ago.
> > I don't have a concrete design for text replication yet; there have been
> > various attempts over the years, but none were particularly compelling.
> 
> What was not compelling about it?

It wasn't merged, so clearly it wasn't compelling enough?

> https://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2007/07/27/112
> 
> What are the other attempts?

I found one from Dave Hansen in 2003:

https://lwn.net/Articles/45082/

I think somebody else may have posted a different one, but I don't
remember now.