![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||