Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759771AbXKMALu (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:11:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753152AbXKMALl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:11:41 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33479 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753445AbXKMALl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:11:41 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: x86_64: Make sparsemem/vmemmap the default memory model Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:59:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , Andy Whitcroft References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711130059.34346.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 632 Lines: 16 On Tuesday 13 November 2007 00:52:14 Christoph Lameter wrote: > Use sparsemem as the only memory model for UP, SMP and NUMA. > > Measurements indicate that DISCONTIGMEM has a higher > overhead than sparsemem. And FLATMEMs benefits are minimal. So I think its > best to simply standardize on sparsemem. How about the memory overhead? Is it the same too? And code size vs flatmem? -Andi - 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/