From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Implement shared page tables From: Arjan van de Ven In-Reply-To: <16640000.1125498711@[10.10.2.4]> References: <7C49DFF721CB4E671DB260F9@[10.1.1.4]> <1125489077.3213.12.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <16640000.1125498711@[10.10.2.4]> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:41:57 +0200 Message-Id: <1125499318.3213.18.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Hugh Dickins , Dave McCracken , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: > > Which is indeed a further disincentive against shared page tables. > > Or shared pagetables a disincentive to randomizing the mmap space ;-) > They're incompatible, but you could be left to choose one or the other > via config option. > > 3% on "a certain industry-standard database benchmark" (cough) is huge, > and we expect the benefit for PPC64 will be larger as we can share the > underlying hardware PTEs without TLB flushing as well. > surely the benchmark people know that the database in question always mmaps the shared area at the address where the first one started it? (if not, could make it so ;) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org