[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] Implement shared page tables
>> They're incompatible, but you could be left to choose one or the other
>> via config option.
> Wouldn't need config option: there's /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
> for the whole running system, compatibility check on the ELFs run, and
> the infinite stack rlimit: enough ways to suppress randomization if it
> doesn't suit you.

Even better - much easier to deal with distro stuff if we can do it at

>> 3% on "a certain industry-standard database benchmark" (cough) is huge,
>> and we expect the benefit for PPC64 will be larger as we can share the
>> underlying hardware PTEs without TLB flushing as well.
> Okay - and you're implying that 3% comes from _using_ the shared page
> tables, rather than from avoiding the fork/exit overhead of setting
> them up and tearing them down. And it can't use huge TLB pages
> because... fragmentation?

Yes - as I understand it, that was a straight measurement with/without the
patch, and the shmem segment was already using hugetlb (in both cases).
Yes, I find that a bit odd as to why as well - they are still trying
to get some detailed profiling to explain.


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: 2005-08-31 17:42    [W:0.036 / U:4.232 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site