From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:27:36 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Sparsemem Virtual Memmap V5 Message-Id: <20070714082736.10af5f13.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01EA65B9@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, apw@shadowen.org, npiggin@suse.de, mel@csn.ul.ie List-ID: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > > How many tests were done and on what platform? > > > > Andy's part 0/7 post starts off with the performance numbers. He > > didn't say which ia64 platform was used for the tests. > > > > Looking my logs for the last few kernel builds (some built on a > > tiger_defconfig kernel which uses CONFIG_VIRTUAL_MEM_MAP=y, and > > some with the new CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP) I'd have a tough time > > saying whether there was a regression or not). > > I'd be very surprised if there is any difference because the IA64 code for > virtual memmap is the source of ideas and implementation for SPARSE_VIRTUAL. > Maybe pfn_valid() implementation is different from ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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