Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:47:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:47:27 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:50440 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:47:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3C118D2B.9050807@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 19:46:51 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, sv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: war CC: Jens Axboe , Marvin Justice , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: highmem question In-Reply-To: <01120719534703.00764@bozo> <20011208015446.GC32569@suse.de> <01120720102404.00764@bozo> <20011208021040.GE32569@suse.de> <3C118C6B.33EA558F@starband.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org war wrote: > I have 1GB of ram + HIGHMEM support on. > > How much of a performance impact are we talking about? > > 896MB of ram would be ok if HIGHMEM impacted the machine severely. > > Has anyone done any benchmarks with HIGHMEM vs NO HIGHMEM? > 1 GB is really the worst case. You don't gain too much memory this way, and suffer the necessary slowdown. Personally I would support dropping the kernel boundary to 0xb8000000 and use 0xb8000000-0xbfffffff for iomem; that way 1 GB wouldn't need HIGHMEM. -hpa - 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/