![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:30:54 -0700 , "Seth, Rohit" <rohit.seth@intel.com> said: Rohit> I'm afraid you may be wasting a lot of extra memory by Rohit> replicaitng these PTEs(Take an example of one 4G large TLB Rohit> size entry and assume there are few hunderd processes using Rohit> that same physical page.) In my opinion, this is perhaps the strongest argument *for* a separate "giant page" syscall interface. It will be very hard (perhaps impossible) to optimize superpages to work efficiently when the ratio of superpage/basepage grows huge (as, by definition, the kernel would manage them as a set of basepages). For example, even if we used a base page-size of 64KB, a 4GB giant page (as supported by Itanium 2) would correspond to 65536 base pages. A superpage of this size would almost certainly still do a lot better than 65536 base pages, but compared to a single giant page, it probably stands no chance performance-wise. --david - 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 [W:0.030 / U:0.190 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||