On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:10:22PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Why is it 2.7GB with both 3:1 and 4:4 ... surely it can get bigger on
> 4:4 ???
You could use 3.7 on 4:4, but what's the point if you throw away the
mapping constantly by flushing the TLB?
Regards,
--
Kurt Garloff <[email protected]> [Koeln, DE]
Physics:Plasma modeling <[email protected]> [TU Eindhoven, NL]
Linux: SUSE Labs (Head) <[email protected]> [SUSE Nuernberg, DE]
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:10:22PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> Why is it 2.7GB with both 3:1 and 4:4 ... surely it can get bigger on
>> 4:4 ???
>
> You could use 3.7 on 4:4, but what's the point if you throw away the
> mapping constantly by flushing the TLB?
Normally, a bigger shm segment = higher performance. Throwing the TLB
away means lower performance. Depending on the workload, the tradeoff
could work out either way ... the only thing I've seen so far from
someone who has measured it was hints that 4/4 was faster in some
situations ... we're trying to do some more runs to confirm / deny that.
Hopefully others will do the same ;-)
M.