From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:21:34 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: Populating multiple ptes at fault time In-Reply-To: <48D2AE6C.7060507@linux-foundation.org> References: <48D2A392.6010308@goop.org> <48D2AE6C.7060507@linux-foundation.org> Message-Id: <20080920191928.50ED.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.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: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Chris Snook , Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickens , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Avi Kivity , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , "Martin J. Bligh" List-ID: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Thanks, that was exactly what I was hoping to see. I didn't see any > > definitive statements against the patch set, other than a concern that > > it could make things worse. Was the upshot that no consensus was > > reached about how to detect when its beneficial to preallocate anonymous > > pages? > > There were multiple discussions on the subject. The consensus was that it was > difficult to generalize this and it would only work on special loads. Plus it > would add some overhead to the general case. but at that time, x86_64 large server doesn't exist yet. I think mesurement again is valuable because typical server environment is changed in these days. -- 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