[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:02:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > Turn off HIGHMEM64G, please (and HIGHMEM4G too, for that matter - you
> > > can't compare it to a no-highmem case).
> >
> > Thanks, your point is demonstrated below. I don't think HIGHMEM4G is
> > unreasonable for a distro tho, so I turned that on instead.
> Well, I agree that HIGHMEM4G is a _reasonable_ thing to turn on.
> The thing I disagree with is that it's at all valid to then compare to
> some all-software feature thing. HIGHMEM doesn't expand any esoteric
> capability that some people might use - it's about regular RAM for regular
> users.
> And don't get me wrong - I don't like HIGHMEM. I detest the damn thing. I
> hated having to merge it, and I still hate it. It's a stupid, ugly, and
> very invasive config option. It's just that it's there to support a
> stupid, ugly and very annoying fundamental hardware problem.

I was looking forward to be able to get rid of it... unfortunately
other 32-bit architectures are starting to use it again :(

I guess it is not incredibly intrusive for generic mm code. A bit
of kmap sprinkled around which is actually quite a useful delimiter
of where pagecache is addressed via its kernel mapping.

Do you hate more the x86 code? Maybe that can be removed?

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 11:41    [W:0.116 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site