![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
--On Thursday, April 08, 2004 01:18:06 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 04:21:44PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> 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 ;-)) > > hey, I can add a sysctl in 5 minutes to disable pte_highmem at runtime, > why do you think it's expensive, it should be not, it's all atomic kmaps > only doing invlpg. The few workloads trashing on the ptes manipulation > needs pte_highmem anyways. If I thought it was expensive for any common > load the sysctl would be already there. I measured it - IIRC it was 5-10% on kernel compile ... and that was on a high ratio NUMA which it should have made *better* (as with highmem, the PTEs can be allocated node locally). I'll try to dig up the old profiles. 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 | |||||||||||||