Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:29:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:29:45 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:53775 "HELO garrincha.netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:29:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:32:55 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Benjamin LaHaise , Andrea Arcangeli , Alan Cox , Chris Friesen , Pavel Machek , , Subject: Re: aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.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: 1027 Lines: 32 On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > > > A 4G/4G split flushes the TLB on every syscall. > > This is just not going to happen. It will have to continue being a 3/1G > split, and we'll just either find a way to move stuff to highmem and > shrink the "struct page", or we'll just say "screw those 16GB+ machines > on x86". I don't like a 4G/4G split at all, either. But on the other hand, I don't hate it as much as all the kludges that are being pushed into the kernel to support these large machines right now ... As long as it's just these huge machines that suffer, and not the sane systems ;) regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/