Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:01:20 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call |
| |
>>> My impression thus far is that the anonymous case has not been pressing >>> with respect to space consumption or cpu time once the file-backed code >>> is in place, though if it resurfaces as a serious concern the anonymous >>> rework can be pursued (along with other things). > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:24:18AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: >> ... but making the anonymous pages use an object based >> scheme probably will make things too expensive. >> IIRC the object based reverse map patches by bcrl and >> davem both failed on the complexities needed to deal >> with anonymous pages. >> My instinct is that a hybrid system will work well in >> most cases and the worst case with mapped files won't >> be too bad. > > The boxen I'm supposed to babysit need a high degree of resource > consciousness wrt. lowmem allocations, so there is a clear voice
It seemed, at least on the simple kernel compile tests that I did, that all the long chains are not anonymous. It killed 95% of the space issue, which given the simplicity of the patch was pretty damned stunning. Yes, there's a pointer per page I guess we could kill in the struct page itself, but I think you already have a better method for killing mem_map bloat ;-)
M. - 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/
| |