Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750980AbVKKSDj (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:03:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750989AbVKKSDj (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:03:39 -0500 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:1238 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980AbVKKSDj (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:03:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:03:33 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Hugh Dickins cc: Andrew Morton , nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/15] mm: atomic64 page counts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20051109181641.4b627eee.akpm@osdl.org> <20051109190135.45e59298.akpm@osdl.org> <20051110135336.24d04b86.akpm@osdl.org> 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: 743 Lines: 15 On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote: > I've nothing against zero page refcounting avoidance, just wanted > numbers to show it's more worth doing than not doing. And I'm not > the only one to have wondered, if it is an issue, wouldn't big NUMA > benefit more from per-node zero pages anyway? (Though of course > the pages themselves should stay clean, so won't be bouncing.) Per-node zero pages sound good. The page structs are placed on the respective nodes and therefore would not bounce. - 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/