![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> 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 ;-)) M. - 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 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||