From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:14:41 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch Message-ID: <2666588581.1035278080@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Bill Davidsen , Dave McCracken , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: > Actually, per-object reverse mappings are nowhere near as good > a solution as shared page tables. At least, not from the points > of view of space consumption and the overhead of tearing down > the mappings at pageout time. > > Per-object reverse mappings are better for fork+exec+exit speed, > though. > > It's a tradeoff: do we care more for a linear speedup of fork(), > exec() and exit() than we care about a possibly exponential > slowdown of the pageout code ? As long as the box doesn't fall flat on it's face in a jibbering heap, that's the first order of priority ... ie I don't care much for now ;-) M. -- 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/