Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > We're piling more and more crap in there to support these pte_chains.
> > How much is too much?
> > Is it likely that large pages and/or shared pagetables would allow us to
> > place pagetables and pte_chains in the direct-mapped region, avoid all
> > this?
> On ppc64 shared pagetables will require significant changes to the way
> we handle the hardware hashtable. So add that to the "more and more crap
> in there to support these pte_chains"
Last I heard, pagetable sharing wasn't working out too well
because they all get unshared.
> Will shared pagetables be a requirement or can we turn it on per arch?
It's doubtful if per-arch would be an option.
How about this?
- We rely on large pages to solve the Oracle problem
- I'll do pte_chain_highmem and keep that and Bill's patch under test
in my tree on a wait-and-see basis. Could go ahead and submit it
but it's all more complexity, and it'd be nice to actually pull
something out for a change.
- We'll continue to suck for the University workload.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:34 EST