Re: [patch] tune vmalloc size

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:03:40PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 04:12:56PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > that is the case already
> 
> why do we still use 128MB as a default then?  this is way over-kill
> from what i can tell looking on what my machines use.  i'd rather have
> this be a bit smaller and enable the slab/whatever to grow a little
> more

if you have an old glibc it will use ldt's which in turn use vmalloc for
threading... 128Mb is no luxury there.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature