From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/7] Sparsemem Virtual Memmap V5 In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01EA65B9@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01EA65B9@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft , Nick Piggin , Mel Gorman List-ID: On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Luck, Tony wrote: > > How many tests were done and on what platform? > > Andy's part 0/7 post starts off with the performance numbers. He > didn't say which ia64 platform was used for the tests. > > Looking my logs for the last few kernel builds (some built on a > tiger_defconfig kernel which uses CONFIG_VIRTUAL_MEM_MAP=y, and > some with the new CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP) I'd have a tough time > saying whether there was a regression or not). I'd be very surprised if there is any difference because the IA64 code for virtual memmap is the source of ideas and implementation for SPARSE_VIRTUAL. -- 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