Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 02:18:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 02:18:20 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:24508 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 02:18:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:18:16 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Bill Davidsen , Dave McCracken cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch Message-ID: <2458064740.1035069495@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 788 Lines: 18 >> For reference, one of the tests was TPC-H. My code reduced the number of >> allocated pte_chains from 5 million to 50 thousand. > > Don't tease, what did that do for performance? I see that someone has > already posted a possible problem, and the code would pass for complex for > most people, so is the gain worth the pain? In many cases, this will stop the box from falling over flat on it's face due to ZONE_NORMAL exhaustion (from pte-chains), or even total RAM exhaustion (from PTEs). Thus the performance gain is infinite ;-) M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/