Re: [PATCH 0/2][RFC] New version of shared page tables

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 8 May 2006, Brian Twichell wrote:
> 
> If we had to choose between pagetable sharing for small pages and hugepages,
> we would be in favor of retaining pagetable sharing for small pages.  That is
> where the discernable benefit is for customers that run with "out-of-the-box"
> settings.  Also, there is still some benefit there on x86-64 for customers
> that use hugepages for the bufferpools.

Thanks for the further info, Brian.  Okay, the hugepage end of it does
add a different kind of complexity, in an area already complex from the
different arch implementations.  If you've found that a significant part
of the hugepage test improvment is actually due to the smallpage changes,
let's turn around what I said, and suggest Dave concentrate on getting the
smallpage changes right, putting the hugepage part of it on the backburner
at least for now (or if he's particularly keen still to present it, as 3/3).

Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/