From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:29:07 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: page table lock patch V15 [0/7]: overview Message-ID: <20050112122907.GB30437@logos.cnet> References: <41E4BCBE.2010001@yahoo.com.au> <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050112014235.7095dcf4.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Nick Piggin , clameter@sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, ak@muc.de, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:42:35AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > Changes from V14->V15 of this patch: > > > > Hi, > > > > I wonder what everyone thinks about moving forward with these patches? > > I was waiting for them to settle down before paying more attention. > > My general take is that these patches address a single workload on > exceedingly rare and expensive machines. If they adversely affect common > and cheap machines via code complexity, memory footprint or via runtime > impact then it would be pretty hard to justify their inclusion. > > Do we have measurements of the negative and/or positive impact on smaller > machines? I haven't seen wide performance numbers of this patch yet. Hint: STP is really easy. -- 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