Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:52:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:52:13 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:27181 "EHLO frodo.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:51:03 -0400 To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Bill Davidsen , Dave McCracken , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch References: <2458064740.1035069495@[10.10.2.3]> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 21 Oct 2002 08:55:24 -0600 In-Reply-To: <2458064740.1035069495@[10.10.2.3]> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1001 Lines: 18 "Martin J. Bligh" writes: > >> 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 ;-) So why has no one written a pte_chain reaper? It is perfectly sane to allocate a swap entry and move an entire pte_chain to the swap cache. Eric - 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/