linux-kernel - Re: pud_bad vs pud

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <498B6325.1040401@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:07:33 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...ementarian.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> We'd also lose a fair bit of performance (not to mention the pagetable 
> footprint doubling that Hugh already mentioned) on 32-bit PAE capable 
> systems that dont actually have RAM above 4G physical.
>   

Why's that?  Do you mean directly from using PAE, or as a side-effect of 
highmem?

    J
--
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/