Re: [PATCH 4/10] alternate 4-level page tables patches

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:06:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Yes I thought about that a bit too.
>>Note that this (4/10) patch should give perfect garbage collection too
>>(modulo bugs). The difference is in where the overheads lie. I suspect
>>refcounting may be too much overhead (at least, SMP overhead); especially
>>in light of Christoph's results.
> 
> 
> If this were so, then clear_page_tables() during process destruction
> would be unnecessary. detach_vmas_to_be_unmapped() makes additional
> work for such schemes, but even improvements are still rather helpful.
> 

If what were so?

> 
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:06:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Although I think it would enable you to do page table reclaim when
>>reclaiming mapped, file backed pages quite easily... but I'm not sure if
>>that is enough to offset the slowdowns.
> 
> 
> That would be a far more appropriate response to high multiprogramming
> levels than what is now done.
> 

On a select few workloads, yes.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>