Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:05:07 +0100 (MET) | From | Max <> | Subject | Re: tiny patch, reduces kernel memory usage (memory_save patch) |
| |
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Max wrote: > >> Ok, so I grabbed a 128Mb PentiumII 266MHz and tested on it. >> >> The results are: >> (still kernel compile, suggest something else and I'll try too) >> >> kernel: memory (code,reserved,data,init): compile time: >> >> stock 2.2.0-pre7 768k,404k,1744k,28k 5m 29s 75 >> 2.2.0-pre7 + my patch 768k,404k,1488k,28k 5m 29s 25 > >Convinced (but note, I don't think it's an improvement, but it really >seems that the overhead is zero and we save some bit of memory at the same >time).
Of course. I was not trying to show it substantially increased performance, as I noticed by myself that it didn't. After all I named the patch as 'memory_save'.
> Next arca patches will have map_nr killed too. Thanks Max.
Wow.
Now, bouncing to the other side (i.e. talking against my own idea *scream*) I noticed that some architectures use p->map_nr in the arch/ tree of the code. In particular sparc64 has a lot of references to it. I wrote a patch to modify them to (p - mem_map) as well as on all other architectures --- which is really simple anyway --- but I don't know wether it may hurt performance on some of the non-Intel archs.
But maybe i386 does the same, hiding it in some macros... so I may be completely wrong.
Massimiliano Ghilardi
---------------------------------------------------------------- | I have yet to meet a person who had a bad experience of Linux. | | Most have never had an experience. | ----------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |