[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070426160507.GC2017@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:05:07 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3
On Thu, Apr 26 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:38:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Hardware is built to handle many small pages efficintly, and I don't
> > understand how it could be an SGI-only issue. Sure, you may have an
> > order of magnitude or more memory than anyone else, but even my lowly
> > desktop _already_ has orders of magnitude more pages than it has TLB
> > entries or cache -- if a workload is cache-nice for me, it probably
> > will be on a 1TB machine as well, and if it is bad for the 1TB machine,
> > it is also bad on mine.
>
> It's not an SGI-only issue, but apparently SGI are the only ones
> that actually care about real highend linux setups to work on these
> issues. The Problem is not on the CPU hardware side. It's on
> the Software side and Storage hardware side, or rather a combination
> of the two.
Agree. I don't know why we are arguing the merrits of this, it's an
obvious win. The problem is more if it's doable this way or not due to
fragmentation, but that's a different discussion and should be kept
seperate.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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