[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D37549.4010107@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:30:01 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm/huge_memory: use new hashtable implementation
On 12/20/2012 03:28 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> In this case, the downside is that you'll waste 8KB if hugepages aren't available,
>> but the upside is that you'll have one less dereference when accessing the
>> hashtable.
>>
>> If the 8KB saving is preferable here I'll drop the patch and come back when
>> dynamic hashtable is supported.
>>
>
> If a distro releases with CONFIG_TRANSPARNET_HUGEPAGE=y and a user is
> running on a processor that does not support pse then this just cost them
> 8KB for no reason. The overhead by simply enabling
> CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is worse in this scenario, but this is whole
> reason for having the dynamic allocation in the original code. If there's
> a compelling reason for why we want this change, then that fact should at
> least be documented.
>
> Could you propose a v2 that includes fixes for the other problems that
> were mentioned?
>
Sure, will do.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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