Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:06:13 +0200 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [patch] tune vmalloc size |
| |
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:03:40PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 04:12:56PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > that is the case already > > why do we still use 128MB as a default then? this is way over-kill > from what i can tell looking on what my machines use. i'd rather have > this be a bit smaller and enable the slab/whatever to grow a little > more
if you have an old glibc it will use ldt's which in turn use vmalloc for threading... 128Mb is no luxury there.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |