Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:09 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:46769 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:34:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:34:22 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Gerrit Huizenga , William Lee Irwin III cc: "Reed, Timothy A" , "Linux Kernel ML (E-mail)" Subject: Re: High Mem Options Message-ID: <655220000.1046900062@flay> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) 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: 943 Lines: 22 > Ah, if you are referring to a number from me, that was with 2.4 and > that number seemed high to me at the time. I don't believe that 10% > *should* be the amount of degradation. But I don't have current numbers > (that I can share, anyway ;-) that prove anything less than that. > > I expect that we'll be diving into this more over the next few months > as we can generate some large workloads and find the cause of the > degradation (and hopefully minimize it). Would also be useful to measure the overhead on a machine with < 4Gb of RAM ... otherwise you have two effects to deal with: 1. the PAE overhead. 2. The increase in RAM - more data to manage, and potential bounce-buffers. 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/