[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070426180932.GA10642@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:09:33 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:03:58PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Iff we really the larger physical page size to support the hardware
> > > then it makes sense to go down a path of larger pages. But it doesn't.
> >
> > You are redefining the problem. We need larger physical sizes to support
> > the hardware. Yes. We can dodge the issue with shim layers and hacks. It
> > is obvious from the kernel sources that this is needed.
>
> We definitely don't. Larger sizes are ONE way to solve the problem, they
> are definitely not the only one. If the larger pages become unfeasible
> for some reason (be it fragmentation, or just because the design isn't
> good), then we can solve it differently.
Exactly. But the only counter-proposal we have so far seems far worse :)
-
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