[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100116123313.GA20059@sucs.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:33:13 +0000
From: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@...mail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 05:49:06PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/30/2009 05:29 PM, Yuhong Bao wrote:
> >
> > Given that Linus was once talking about the performance penalties of
> > PAE and HIGHMEM64G, perhaps you'd find these benchmarks done by
> > Phoronix of interest:
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae
> >
>
> The big difference isn't between HIGHMEM4G (no PAE) and HIGHMEM64G
> (PAE), it's between HIGHMEM and !HIGHMEM. That cutoff is ~892 MB for a
> stock 32-bit kernel.
Thanks for the clarification - I had been wondering about why those
settings had been benchmarked against each other...
I took a mild interest because I have an EeePC 900 with 1G of RAM. The
machine can do PAE but my understanding is that this would lead to a
performance drop (I currently have VMSPLIT_3G so I can use all 1G of
memory) so I run it without HIGHMEM.
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
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