Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:11:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:11:46 -0500 Received: from [202.135.142.195] ([202.135.142.195]:1803 "EHLO haven.ozlabs.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:11:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:12:15 +1100 From: Rusty Russell To: Andi Kleen Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives? Message-Id: <20011109141215.08d33c96.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.5.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09 Nov 2001 00:00:19 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > Ingo Molnar writes: > > > > we should fix this by trying to allocate continuous physical memory if > > possible, and fall back to vmalloc() only if this allocation fails. > > Check -aa. A patch to do that has been in there for some time now. > > -Andi > > P.S.: It makes a measurable difference with some Oracle benchmarks with > the Qlogic driver. Modules have lots of little disadvantages that add up. The speed penalty on various platforms is one, the load/unload race complexity is another. There's a widespread "modules are free!" mentality: they're not, and we can add complexity trying to make them "free", but it might be wiser to realize that dynamic adding and deleting from a running kernel is a problem on par with a pagagble kernel, and may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Rusty. - 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/