Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:40:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:40:45 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:57613 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:40:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:38:31 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Rik van Riel cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Benjamin LaHaise , "David S. Miller" , Subject: Re: please revert bogus patch to vmscan.c 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 On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Only on architectures where the TLB (or equivalent) is > small and only capable of holding entries for one address > space at a time. > > It's simply not true on eg PPC. Now, it's not true on _all_ PPC's. The sane PPC setups actually have a regular soft-filled TLB, and last I saw that actually performed _better_ than the stupid architected hash- chains. And for the broken OS's (ie AIX) that wants the hash-chains, you can always make the soft-fill TLB do the stupid thing.. (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you can find code where the hash-chains are faster, especially big Fortran programs that have basically no tear-down and build-up overhead. Which was why those things were designed that way, of course. But it _looks_ like at least parts of IBM may finally be wising up to the fact that hashed TLB's are a stupid idea). Linus - 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/