Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:01:40 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: -mmX 4G patches feedback [numbers: how much performance impact] |
| |
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 03:58:25PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > so .... such microbenchmarks seems pointless. I'm not against 4/4G at all, > I think it solves a real problem ... I just think latency numbers are a
I agree as well it solves a real problem (i.e. 4G userspace), though the userbase that needs it is extremely limited and they're sure ok to run slower than to change their application to use shmfs (a special 4:4 kernel may be ok, just like a special 2.5:1.5 may be ok, just like 3.5:0.5 was ok for similar reasons too), but the mass market doesn't need 4:4 and it will never need it, so it's bad to have the masses pay for this relevant worthless runtime overhead in various common workloads.
Of course above I'm talking about 2.6-aa or 2.6-mjb. Clearly with kernels including rmap like 2.6 mainline or 2.6-mm or 2.6-mc or the 2.4-rmap patches you need 4:4 everywhere, even on a 4/8G box to avoid running out of normal zone in some fairly common and important workload. - 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/
| |