Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:34:58 -0700 | From | yodaiken@fsmlabs ... | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: 10.31 second kernel compile |
| |
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:05:17PM -0700, Richard Gooch wrote: > > Why not? If you just ran vim on console you'd be more productive and > > not need all those worthless processes. > > Yeah, right.
I was just trying to be nice.
> > At 4KB/page and 8bytes/pte a > > 1G process will need at least 2MB of pte alone ! Add in the 4 layers, > > the software VM struct, ... > > This isn't a dedicated bigass-image display box. It's a workstation. > It's where I read email, hack kernels, write visualisation tools and > stuff like that. > > And I can afford a few MiB of RAM for PTE's and such for *the one > process which is mapping my huge data files*! That's effectively a > small, one-time cost. Every other process doesn't have a significant > PTE cost.
Well, it's a matter of target. I'm thinking about our customers who do high grade image processing on a stream of gig+ bitmaps. They need 64 (some are already painfully stranded on Alphas) and they don't use these boxes for email.
> > But sure, big pages are not always good. > > Hm. With wide TLB's, what are the benefits to big pages? One
tlb miss rates, mm structure overhead and setup/teardown, swap speed,
--------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |