[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Panic on 2.6.0-test1-mm1
William Lee Irwin III <> wrote:
>> You may now put the "aggravated" magnet beneath the "wli" position on
>> the fridge.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:40:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I never, ever, at any stage was told that highpmd.patch offered any
> benefits wrt lock contention or node locality. I was only told that it
> saved a little bit of memory on highmem boxes.

The lock contention is unrelated apart from the mangling of pgd_ctor().
The node locality is only important on systems with exaggerated NUMA
characteristics, such as the kind Martin and I bench on.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:40:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It would be useful to actually tell me what your patches do. And to
> provide test results which demonstrate the magnitude of the performance
> benefits.

I don't believe it would be valuable to push it on the grounds of
performance, as the performance characteristics of modern midrange i386
systems don't have such high remote access penalties.

The complaint was targetted more at errors in some new incoming patch
motivating mine being backed out.

-- wli
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 13:47    [W:0.090 / U:3.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site