[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
Alan Cox <> writes:

> > On September 17, 2001 06:03 pm, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > In linux we have avoided reverse maps (unlike the BSD's) which tends
> > > to make the common case fast at the expense of making it more
> > > difficult to handle times when the VM system is under extreme load and
> > > we are swapping etc.
> >
> > What do you suppose is the cost of the reverse map? I get the impression you
> > think it's more expensive than it is.
> We can keep the typical page table cost lower than now (including reverse
> maps) just by doing some common sense small cleanups to get the page struct
> down to 48 bytes on x86

While there is a size cost I suspect you will notice reverse maps
a lot more in operations like fork where having them tripples the amount
of memory that you need to copy. So you should see a double or more
in the time it takes to do a fork.

That I think is a significant cost.


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 13:03    [W:0.109 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site