Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:37:20 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] vm-mapped-x-active-lists |
| |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Current efforts are now a background/spare time affair centering around >> non-i386 architectures and driver audits.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:23:53PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > OK. I had just noticed that the people complaining about rmap most > are the ones using 4K page size (x86-64 uses 4K, doesn't it?). Not > that this fact means it is OK to ignore them problem, but I thought > maybe pgcl might solve it in a more general way. > I wonder how much you gain with objrmap / anobjrmap on say a 64K page > architecture?
pgcl doesn't reduce userspace's mapping granularity. The current implementation has the same pte_chain overhead as mainline for the same virtualspace mapped. It's unclear how feasible it is to reduce this overhead, though various proposals have gone around. I've ignored the potential pte_chain reduction issue entirely in favor of concentrating on more basic correctness and functionality. The removal of the 1:1 pte page : struct page assumption is the vastly more important aspect of anobjrmap in relation to pgcl, since removing that assumption would remove a significant piece of complexity.
-- 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/
| |