[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703161346060.6204@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Make common x86 arch area for i386 and x86_64 -
Take 2
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
> You have to do some sort of lookup anyway, and Andy seemed to have them
> all folded into one.
What lookup would you need to do? On x86_64 even the TLB use is
hidden by the existing 2M entries for 1-1 mappings.
> Or are you trying to avoid this by going to back to the crud we had
> in 2.4 where we pretend mem_map is one big array, indexed by pfn with
> huge sparsely mapped holes in it?
Yes that the advanced way of doing it rather than adding useless custom
lookups.
> Would be nice to work out (and document somewhere) what the pros and
> cons of virtual memmap vs sparsemem were - ISTR one of the arguments
> was extremely sparsely layed out machines, and you needed sparsemem
> for that. But right now we have 3 solutions, which is not a good
> situation.
Please read my posts to linux-mm on that subject. We discussed it last
year in detail and the agreement was that the sparsemem crud needs to be
taken out. Kame-san posted patches to do that.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists