lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: bigphysarea in 2.2
    On 11 Apr 1998, David Mentre wrote:

    > Peter Monta <pmonta@halibut.imedia.com> writes:
    >
    > > > Is it too late to ask that the bigphysarea patch be included in the
    > > > 2.1-and-soon-to-be-2.2 kernel?
    > >
    > > Seconded. Thanks for offering to maintain it.
    >
    > With the new kernel memory manager, and if the defragmenting code which
    > is under development works, wouldn't it be more useful to use standard
    > kernel memory allocation. Static allocation like in bigphysarea is more
    > a work-around that a real solution.

    I think we _do_ need bigphysarea in the kernel. There are
    some guys in Italy that use 128M boxes, with 100M framegrabber
    buffer!!!

    We don't want to modify the VM system to support these extreme
    cases (performance), but we _do_ want to support them...

    IMHO, bigphysarea is the way to go for extreme systems.

    Rik.
    +-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
    | Linux: - LinuxHQ MM-patches page | Scouting webmaster |
    | - kswapd ask-him & complain-to guy | Vries cubscout leader |
    | http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~riel/ | <H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl> |
    +-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:2.758 / U:0.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site