Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:57:07 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: fix CONFIG_HIGHPTE |
| |
Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > > We're piling more and more crap in there to support these pte_chains. > > How much is too much? > > > > Is it likely that large pages and/or shared pagetables would allow us to > > place pagetables and pte_chains in the direct-mapped region, avoid all > > this? > > On ppc64 shared pagetables will require significant changes to the way > we handle the hardware hashtable. So add that to the "more and more crap > in there to support these pte_chains"
Last I heard, pagetable sharing wasn't working out too well because they all get unshared.
> Will shared pagetables be a requirement or can we turn it on per arch?
It's doubtful if per-arch would be an option.
How about this?
- We rely on large pages to solve the Oracle problem
- I'll do pte_chain_highmem and keep that and Bill's patch under test in my tree on a wait-and-see basis. Could go ahead and submit it but it's all more complexity, and it'd be nice to actually pull something out for a change.
- We'll continue to suck for the University workload. - 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/
| |