Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:12:30 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.22pre6aa1 |
| |
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 04:04:31PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 12:53:28AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > I tend to think the creation/destruction will be the most noticeable > > performance difference in practice. allocating 42G in a single block > > will take a bit of time ;). I'm not necessairly worse or unacceptable, > > but it's different. And I feel I've to retain the bigpages= API (as an > > API not as in implementation) anyways. Furthmore I'm unsure if hugtlbfs > > is relaxed like the shm-largpeage patch is, I mean, it should be > > possible to mmap the stuff with 4k granularty too, or stuff could break > > due that change of API too. > > I've just not gotten feedback about creation and destruction; I get the > impression it's an uncommon operation.
It's uncommon of course. A 42G allocated all at once, may take a while and 48G works flawlessy at peak performance w/o 4:4. I support as much as 64G all in a single shmfs file backed by bigpages (and it won't run out of memory with a 64G box either, even with the 3:1 mapping)
> The alignment etc. considerations are bits I probably can't get merged. =(
so the apps will need changes and a kernel API way to know the hardware page size provided by hugetlbfs (though they could probe for it with many tries).
> Most of the work I did was trying to get the preexisting semantics into > more standard-looking API's, e.g. vfs ops and standard-ish sysv shm.
yes.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |