[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070719012848.GO11115@waste.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:28:48 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>, Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] 4K stacks default, not a debug thing any more...?
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 02:48:37AM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/19/2007 02:41 AM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 02:15:39AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> >>Using kmalloc(8k) instead of alloc_page() doesn't sound a too big deal
> >>and that will solve the problem.
> >
> >How do you figure?
> >
> >If you're saying that soft pages helps our 8k stack allocations, it
> >doesn't. The memory overhead of soft pages will be higher (5-15%,
> >mostly due to file tails in pagecache) than the level at which 8k
> >stacks currently run into trouble (1-2% free?).
> >
> >Not helpful.
>
> With tail-packing it is.
Tail packing is a whole new can of worms. Especially as it's very
likely to make performance suffer on small files (the common case).
On the other hand, if someone can demonstrate that tail-packed page
cache doesn't suck, we should put it in mainline pronto. The poor
architectures that are stuck with real 64k pages are sure to
appreciate it.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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