[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803241402060.7762@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: larger default page sizes...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > The move to 64k page size on IA64 is another way that this issue can
> > be addressed though.
>
> This is such a huge mistake I wish platforms such as powerpc and IA64
> would not make such decisions so lightly.
Its certainly not a light decision if your customer tells you that the box
is almost unusable with 16k page size. For our new 2k and 4k processor
systems this seems to be a requirement. Customers start hacking SLES10 to
run with 64k pages....
> The memory wastage is just rediculious.
Well yes if you would use such a box for kernel compiles and small files
then its a bad move. However, if you have to process terabytes of data
then this is significantly reducing the VM and I/O overhead.
> I already see several distributions moving to 64K pages for powerpc,
> so I want to nip this in the bud before this monkey-see-monkey-do
> thing gets any more out of hand.
powerpc also runs HPC codes. They certainly see the same results that we
see.
--
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