lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.052 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site