[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110227115350.GB16453@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:53:50 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mm,64bit: Round up memory boundary for
init_memory_mapping_high()
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > will have problem with cross node conf. like 0-4g, 8-12g on node0, 4g-8g,
> > 12g-16g on node1.
>
> And how common are they? This whole cruft is basically meaningless if 1GiB
> mapping is supported, IOW, basically on all AMD 64s and all post-nehalem intels.
> Why not just cite the limitation in the comment and stick to something simple?
Such complexity should be justified via very careful "perf stat --repeat"
measurements.
I.e. showing 'before patch' and 'after patch' instruction, TLB miss and cycle
counts, showing that a positive effect that goes beyond the noise of the measurement
exists.
1GB mappings should be assumed as the common case - anything else probably does not
matter from a future performance/scalability POV. For vmalloc() it might make sense
- but even for those precise measurements should be done about the positive effect.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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