Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:49:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:49:29 -0400 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:22280 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:49:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:54:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Davidsen To: Rik van Riel cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Martin J. Bligh" , Dave McCracken , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.43-mm2] New shared page table patch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: 1269 Lines: 36 On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 21 Oct 2002, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > "Martin J. Bligh" writes: > > We swap pages out all of the time in 2.4.x, and that is all I was > > suggesting swap out some but not all of the pages, on a very long > > pte_chain. And swapping out a page is not terribly complex, unless > > something very drastic has changed. > > Imagine a slightly larger than normal Oracle server. > Say 5000 processes with 1 GB of shared memory. > > Just the page tables needed to map this memory would > take up 5 GB of RAM ... with shared page tables we > only need 1 MB of page tables. > > The corresponding reduction in rmaps is a nice bonus, > but hardly any more dramatic than the page table > overhead. > > In short, we really really want shared page tables. Does using spt require mapping the pages at the same location in all processes? -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/