From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86_64: Switch to SPARSE_VIRTUAL Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 00:31:24 +0200 References: <20070401071024.23757.4113.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <1175550968.22373.122.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1175550968.22373.122.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704030031.24898.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Martin Bligh , linux-mm@kvack.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Monday 02 April 2007 23:56:08 Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:28 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > I do not care what its called as long as it > > covers all the bases and is not a glaring performance regresssion (like > > SPARSEMEM so far). > > I honestly don't doubt that there are regressions, somewhere. Could you > elaborate, and perhaps actually show us some numbers on this? Perhaps > instead of adding a completely new model, we can adapt the existing ones > somehow. If it works I would be inclined to replaced old sparsemem with Christoph's new one on x86-64. Perhaps that could cut down the bewildering sparsemem ifdef jungle that is there currently. But I presume it won't work on 32bit because of the limited address space? > But, without some cold, hard, data, we mere mortals without the 1024-way > machines can only guess. ;) Yep. -Andi (who would be scared of a 1024 way x86 machine) -- 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