lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 2.4.19pre1aa1
Date
On March 2, 2002 03:06 am, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > rather than patches. But there are a lot more small machines (which I feel
> > are better served by rmap) than large. I would like to leave the jury out
>
> I think there's quite some confusion going on from the rmap users, let's
> clarify the facts.
>
> The rmap design in the VM is all about decreasing the complexity of
> swap_out on the huge boxes (so it's all about saving CPU), by slowing
> down a big lots of fast common paths like page faults and by paying with
> some memory too. See the lmbench numbers posted by Randy after applying
> rmap to see what I mean.

Do you know any reason why rmap must slow down the page fault fast, or are
you just thinking about Rik's current implementation? Yes, rmap has to add
a pte_chain entry there, but it can be a direct pointer in the unshared case
and the spinlock looks like it can be avoided in the common case as well.

--
Daniel
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.981 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site