From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:01:12 -0800 From: Chris Wedgwood Subject: Re: Prezeroing V2 [3/4]: Add support for ZEROED and NOT_ZEROED free maps Message-ID: <20041227000112.GB29854@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <87wtv464ty.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Florian Weimer , 7eggert@gmx.de, Christoph Lameter , akpm@osdl.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 03:12:45PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Anyway, at this point I think the most interesting question is > whether it actually improves any macro-benchmark behaviour, rather > than just a page fault latency tester microbenchmark.. i can't see how is many cases it won't make things *worse* in many cases, especially if you use hardware it seems you will be evicting (potentially) useful cache-lines from the CPU when using hardware scrubbing in many cases and when using the CPU if the tuning isn't right just trashing the caches anyhow I'd really like to see how it affects something like make -j sorta things (since gcc performance is something i personally care about more than how well some contrived benchmark does) -- 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: aart@kvack.org