From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: Gerrit Huizenga From: Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:09:47 PDT. <3DB5865B.4462537F@digeo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6644.1035312307.1@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:45:11 -0700 Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Rik van Riel , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Martin J. Bligh" , Bill Davidsen , Dave McCracken , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: In message <3DB5865B.4462537F@digeo.com>, > : Andrew Morton writes: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > ... > > In short, we really really want shared page tables. > > Or large pages. I confess to being a little perplexed as to > why we're pursuing both. Large pages benefit the performance of large applications which explicity take advantage of them (at least today - maybe in the future, large pages will be automagically handed out to those that can use them). And, as a side effect, they reduce KVA overhead. Oh, and at the moment, they are non-pageable, e.g. permanently stuck in memory. On the other hand, shared page tables benefit any application that shares data, including those that haven't been trained to roll over and beg for large pages. Shared page tables are already showing large space savings with at least one database. gerrit -- 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/