| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:50:00 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: clameter@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: larger default page sizes... David Miller writes: > From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:29:55 +1100 > > > The performance advantage of using hardware 64k pages is pretty > > compelling, on a wide range of programs, and particularly on HPC apps. > > Please read the rest of my responses in this thread, you > can have your HPC cake and eat it too. It's not just HPC, as I pointed out, it's pretty much everything, including kernel compiles. And "use hugepages" is a pretty inadequate answer given the restrictions of hugepages and the difficulty of using them. How do I get gcc to use hugepages, for instance? Using 64k pages gives us a performance boost for almost everything without the user having to do anything. If the hugepage stuff was in a state where it enabled large pages to be used for mapping an existing program, where possible, without any changes to the executable, then I would agree with you. But it isn't, it's a long way from that, and (as I understand it) Linus has in the past opposed the suggestion that we should move in that direction. Paul. -- 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