[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Have the 2.4 kernel memory management problems on large machines been fixed?
> Fixing the application to use clone() not 4000 individual sets of page
> tables might not be a bad plan either.

Oracle !*#$(*^ #(*%^(#*^6 &@^@* #^#*^ %#%.

> Do each of your tasks map the stuff at the same address. If you are
> assuming this how do you plan to handle the person who doesn't. You won't
> be able to share page tables then ?

I think so. They're also hardlocked in memory which makes life easier.

> Can you even make that work -before- the customers have all upgraded
> anyway ?

Given that we're selling a new line of machines based on this now, I'd guess
it'll be 5 years before they're all upgraded. On the other hand, I think they'll
lynch us if Linux doesn't work properly on these type of machines within the
next year ;-) But, yes, I still think it's worth it. Hammer is a great promise, but
it's just not here right now, and I don't think we'll have production level 8-way
and 16-way machines for at least a year ...

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 13:22    [W:0.157 / U:37.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site