From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@mbligh.org>
To: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus@valinux.co.jp>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/07][RFC] i386: NUMA emulation
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:54:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93300000.1128354870@[10.10.2.4]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0510030831550.11541@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
--David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote (on Monday, October 03, 2005 08:32:47 -0700):
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
>> --David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote (on Monday, October 03, 2005 08:13:09 -0700):
>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>
>>>> --David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote (on Monday, October 03, 2005 08:03:44 -0700):
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But that's not the same at all! ;-) PAE memory is the same speed as
>>>>>> the other stuff. You just have a 3rd level of pagetables for everything.
>>>>>> One could (correctly) argue it made *all* memory slower, but it does so
>>>>>> in a uniform fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> is it? I've seen during the memory self-test at boot that machines slow down noticably as they pass the 4G mark.
>>>>
>>>> Not noticed that, and I can't see why it should be the case in general,
>>>> though I suppose some machines might be odd. Got any numbers?
>>>
>>> just the fact that the system boot memory test takes 3-4 times as long with 8G or ram then with 4G of ram. I then boot a 64 bit kernel on the system and never use PAE mode again :-)
>>>
>>> if you can point me at a utility that will test the speed of the memory in different chunks I'll do some testing on the Opteron systems I have available. unfortunantly I don't have any Xeon systems to test this on.
>>
>> Mmm. 64-bit uniproc systems, with > 4GB of RAM, running a 32 bit kernel
>> don't really strike me as a huge market segment ;-)
>
> true, but there are a lot of 32-bit uniproc systems sold by Intel that have (or can have) more then 4G of ram. These are the machines I was thinking of.
Does your opteron box have more than 1 socket? that'd explain it.
Anyway, it shouldn't happen on any normal platform. Until we get
numbers that prove that it does (and understand why), I don't think
we need NUMA for PAE.
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-03 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-30 7:33 Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 01/07] i386: srat non acpi Magnus Damm, Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 02/07] i386: numa on non-smp Magnus Damm, Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 03/07] cpuset: smp or numa Magnus Damm, Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 04/07] i386: numa warning fix Magnus Damm, Isaku Yamahata
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 05/07] i386: sparsemem on pc Magnus Damm, Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 15:25 ` Dave Hansen
2005-10-01 0:32 ` Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 06/07] i386: discontigmem " Magnus Damm, Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 7:33 ` [PATCH 07/07] i386: numa emulation " Magnus Damm, Isaku Yamahata
2005-09-30 18:55 ` Dave Hansen
2005-10-03 9:59 ` Magnus Damm
2005-10-03 16:16 ` Dave Hansen
2005-10-04 5:06 ` Magnus Damm
2005-10-04 7:52 ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2005-10-04 9:49 ` Magnus Damm
2005-09-30 15:23 ` [PATCH 00/07][RFC] i386: NUMA emulation Dave Hansen
2005-10-03 2:08 ` Magnus Damm
2005-10-03 7:34 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 10:02 ` Magnus Damm
2005-10-03 13:33 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 14:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-10-03 15:03 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 15:08 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-10-03 15:13 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 15:25 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-10-03 15:32 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 15:54 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2005-10-03 16:44 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 14:45 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-10-03 14:49 ` David Lang
2005-10-03 3:21 ` Paul Jackson
2005-10-03 5:05 ` Magnus Damm
2005-10-03 5:26 ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2005-10-03 5:33 ` Paul Jackson
2005-10-03 5:59 ` Magnus Damm
2005-10-03 7:26 ` Paul Jackson
2005-10-03 5:34 ` Paul Jackson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='93300000.1128354870@[10.10.2.4]' \
--to=mbligh@mbligh.org \
--cc=david.lang@digitalinsight.com \
--cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=magnus@valinux.co.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox