Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:14:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:14:01 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:28877 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:14:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:14:41 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Rik van Riel cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Bill Davidsen , Dave McCracken , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch Message-ID: <2666588581.1035278080@[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: 866 Lines: 23 > Actually, per-object reverse mappings are nowhere near as good > a solution as shared page tables. At least, not from the points > of view of space consumption and the overhead of tearing down > the mappings at pageout time. > > Per-object reverse mappings are better for fork+exec+exit speed, > though. > > It's a tradeoff: do we care more for a linear speedup of fork(), > exec() and exit() than we care about a possibly exponential > slowdown of the pageout code ? As long as the box doesn't fall flat on it's face in a jibbering heap, that's the first order of priority ... ie I don't care much for now ;-) 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/