[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: please revert bogus patch to vmscan.c

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Only on architectures where the TLB (or equivalent) is
> small and only capable of holding entries for one address
> space at a time.
> It's simply not true on eg PPC.

Now, it's not true on _all_ PPC's.

The sane PPC setups actually have a regular soft-filled TLB, and last I
saw that actually performed _better_ than the stupid architected hash-
chains. And for the broken OS's (ie AIX) that wants the hash-chains, you
can always make the soft-fill TLB do the stupid thing..

(Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you can find code where the hash-chains are faster,
especially big Fortran programs that have basically no tear-down and
build-up overhead. Which was why those things were designed that way, of
course. But it _looks_ like at least parts of IBM may finally be wising up
to the fact that hashed TLB's are a stupid idea).


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 13:12    [W:0.163 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site