Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:50:26 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: Using O(1) scheduler with 600 processes. |
| |
At some point in the past, someone else wrote: >> So I decided to try 2.4.20aa1 instead, reversing the xfs patches, and >> then updating with a newer code base, worse problems reversing those xfs >> patches. >> SO I decided to just roll my own with the known features we use in >> production. >> 2.4.20 + xfs + lvm106 + rmap or aavm + O(1) sched + pte-highmem.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:48:19PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > If you have enough ptes to want pte-highmem, I doubt you want rmap. > pte-chain space consumption will kill you. The calculations are pretty > easy to work out as to what the right solution is for your setup.
Basically vma-based ptov resolution needs to be implemented for private anonymous pages, which will require much less ZONE_NORMAL space overhead as pte_chains may then be chucked.
Dropping physical scanning altogether would be a mistake esp. for boxen of any appreciable amount of physical locality (NUMA, big highmem penalties, etc.) or wishing to support any significant number of tasks.
-- wli - 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/
| |