From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:14:11 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview In-Reply-To: <1834180000.1100969975@[10.10.2.4]> Message-ID: References: <20041120020306.GA2714@holomorphy.com> <419EBBE0.4010303@yahoo.com.au> <20041120035510.GH2714@holomorphy.com> <419EC205.5030604@yahoo.com.au> <20041120042340.GJ2714@holomorphy.com> <419EC829.4040704@yahoo.com.au> <20041120053802.GL2714@holomorphy.com> <419EDB21.3070707@yahoo.com.au> <20041120062341.GM2714@holomorphy.com> <419EE911.20205@yahoo.com.au> <20041119225701.0279f846.akpm@osdl.org> <419EEE7F.3070509@yahoo.com.au> <1834180000.1100969975@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , wli@holomorphy.com, clameter@sgi.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > Per thread seems much nicer to me - mainly because it degrades cleanly to > a single counter for 99% of processes, which are single threaded. I will pretty much guarantee that if you put the per-thread patches next to some abomination with per-cpu allocation for each mm, the choice will be clear. Especially if the per-cpu/per-mm thing tries to avoid false cacheline sharing, which sounds really "interesting" in itself. And without the cacheline sharing avoidance, what's the point of this again? It sure wasn't to make the code simpler. It was about performance and scalability. Linus -- 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: aart@kvack.org