From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43FBD1D3.109@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:52:03 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove zone_mem_map References: <43FBAEBA.2020300@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060221183306.3d467d14.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060221183306.3d467d14.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haveblue@us.ibm.com, Christoph Lameter List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> This patch removes zone_mem_map from zone. >> By this, (generic) page_to_pfn and pfn_to_page can use the same logic. > > I assume this is dependent upon unify-pfn_to_page-*.patch? > yes. sorry for forgetting to write it. >> This modifies page_to_pfn implementation. Could anyone do performance test on NUMA ? > > Do you expect there to be NUMA performance problems? If so, how do they > arise and what sort of tests should be run? > I don't expect it. But when I posted this before (as RFC), some persons (Martin J. Bligh and Dave Hansen) had concerns about it. I think the heaviest users of page_to_pfn() are the page allocator and mk_pte(page_to_pfn(page), hogehoge). So, tests like "mmap -> touch all -> unmap" will be good test. powerpc and ia64 is not a good test environment, because they don't use page_to_pfn() of generic DISCONTIG definitions. other NUMAs (i386, x86_64 etc..) will be good. 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