[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Maybe a VM bug in 2.4.18-18 from RH 8.0?
At some point in the past, I wrote:
> My point is that making any distinction will lead to inevitable
> fragmentation of memory.

It's mostly userspace; the kernel is usually (hello drivers/ !) cautious
and uses slab.c's anti-internal fragmentation techniques for most structs.

At some point in the past, I wrote:
>> Hmm, from the appearances of the patch (my ability to test the patch
>> is severely hampered by its age) it should actually maintain hardware
>> pagesize mmap() granularity, ABI compatibility, etc.

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:50:32AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> If it only implements the MMUPAGE_SIZE, yes, it can.
> You break the ABI as soon as you change the kernel wide PAGE_SIZE. it is
> allowed only on 64bit binaries running on a x86-64 kernel. The 32bit
> binaries running in compatibility mode as said would suffer a bit, but
> most things should run and we can make hacks like using anon mappings if
> the files are small just for the sake of running some app 32bit (like we
> use anon mappings for a.out binaries needing 1k offsets today).

I'm not sure what to make of this. The distinction and PTE vectoring
API (AFAICT) allows PTE's to map sub-PAGE_SIZE-sized (MMUPAGE_SIZE to
be exact) regions. Someone start screaming if I misread the patch.

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:50:32AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Said that even the MMUPAGE_SIZE alone would be useful, but I'd prefer if
> the kernel wide PAGE_SIZE would be increased (with the disavantage of
> breaking the ABI, but it would be a config option, even the 2G/3.5G/1G
> split has the chance of breaking some app despite I wouldn't classify it
> as an ABI violation for the reason explained in one of the last emails).

Userspace is required to have >= 3GB of virtualspace, according to the
SVR4 i386 ABI spec. But we don't follow that strictly anyway.

At some point in the past, I wrote:
>> I think this is a perfect example of how the increased awareness of
>> space consumption highmem gives us helps us optimize all boxen.

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:50:32AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> In this case funnily it has a chance to help some 64bit boxes too ;).

I've heard the sizeof(mem_map) footprint is worse on 64-bit because
while PAGE_SIZE remains the same, but pointers double in size. This
would help a bit there, too.

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 13:31    [W:0.099 / U:6.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site