[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5069D3D8.9070805@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:33:12 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
CC: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Virtual huge zero page
On 10/01/2012 10:26 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
>> It is well known that microbenchmarks can be horribly misleading. What
>> led to Kirill investigating huge zero page in the first place was the
>> fact that some applications/macrobenchmarks benefit, and I think those
>> are the right thing to look at.
>
> The whole point of the two microbenchmarks was to measure the worst
> cases for both scenarios and I think that was useful. Real life using
> zero pages are going to be somewhere in that range.
>
... and I think it would be worthwhile to know which effect dominates
(or neither, in which case it doesn't matter).
Overall, I'm okay with either as long as we don't lock down 2 MB when
there isn't a huge zero page in use.
-hpa
--
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