[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: -mmX 4G patches feedback [numbers: how much performance impact]
    > I agree as well it solves a real problem (i.e. 4G userspace), though the
    > userbase that needs it is extremely limited and they're sure ok to run
    > slower than to change their application to use shmfs (a special 4:4
    > kernel may be ok, just like a special 2.5:1.5 may be ok, just like
    > 3.5:0.5 was ok for similar reasons too), but the mass market doesn't
    > need 4:4 and it will never need it, so it's bad to have the masses pay
    > for this relevant worthless runtime overhead in various common
    > workloads.

    Yeah, it needs to be a separate kernel for huge blobby machines. I think
    that's exactly what RH does, IIRC (> 16GB ?)

    > Of course above I'm talking about 2.6-aa or 2.6-mjb. Clearly with
    > kernels including rmap like 2.6 mainline or 2.6-mm or 2.6-mc or the
    > 2.4-rmap patches you need 4:4 everywhere, even on a 4/8G box to avoid
    > running out of normal zone in some fairly common and important workload.

    Speaking of which, pte_highmem is stinking expensive itself. There's
    probably a large class of workloads that'd work with out pte_highmem
    if we had 4/4 split (or shared pagetables. Grrr ;-))


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.020 / U:3.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site