[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: please revert bogus patch to vmscan.c

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > Only on architectures where the TLB (or equivalent) is
    > small and only capable of holding entries for one address
    > space at a time.
    > It's simply not true on eg PPC.

    Now, it's not true on _all_ PPC's.

    The sane PPC setups actually have a regular soft-filled TLB, and last I
    saw that actually performed _better_ than the stupid architected hash-
    chains. And for the broken OS's (ie AIX) that wants the hash-chains, you
    can always make the soft-fill TLB do the stupid thing..

    (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you can find code where the hash-chains are faster,
    especially big Fortran programs that have basically no tear-down and
    build-up overhead. Which was why those things were designed that way, of
    course. But it _looks_ like at least parts of IBM may finally be wising up
    to the fact that hashed TLB's are a stupid idea).


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.027 / U:10.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site