> Peter Monta <pmonta@halibut.imedia.com> writes:
>
> > > Is it too late to ask that the bigphysarea patch be included in the
> > > 2.1-and-soon-to-be-2.2 kernel?
> >
> > Seconded. Thanks for offering to maintain it.
>
> With the new kernel memory manager, and if the defragmenting code which
> is under development works, wouldn't it be more useful to use standard
> kernel memory allocation. Static allocation like in bigphysarea is more
> a work-around that a real solution.
I think we _do_ need bigphysarea in the kernel. There are
some guys in Italy that use 128M boxes, with 100M framegrabber
buffer!!!
We don't want to modify the VM system to support these extreme
cases (performance), but we _do_ want to support them...
IMHO, bigphysarea is the way to go for extreme systems.
Rik.
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Linux: - LinuxHQ MM-patches page | Scouting webmaster |
| - kswapd ask-him & complain-to guy | Vries cubscout leader |
| http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~riel/ | <H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl> |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu