[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4614E67D.7000006@shadowen.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:07:25 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC: Dave Hansen <hansendc@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86_64: Switch to SPARSE_VIRTUAL
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 02 April 2007 23:56:08 Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:28 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> I do not care what its called as long as it
>>> covers all the bases and is not a glaring performance regresssion (like
>>> SPARSEMEM so far).
>> I honestly don't doubt that there are regressions, somewhere. Could you
>> elaborate, and perhaps actually show us some numbers on this? Perhaps
>> instead of adding a completely new model, we can adapt the existing ones
>> somehow.
>
> If it works I would be inclined to replaced old sparsemem with Christoph's
> new one on x86-64. Perhaps that could cut down the bewildering sparsemem
> ifdef jungle that is there currently.
>
> But I presume it won't work on 32bit because of the limited address space?
Right. But we might be able to do switch SPARSEMEM_EXTREME users here
if performance is better and no other regressions are detected.
There seems to be a theme, we need to get some numbers. I will try and
get what I can with the hardware I have and see whats missing.
>
>> But, without some cold, hard, data, we mere mortals without the 1024-way
>> machines can only guess. ;)
-apw
-
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