From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:48024 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965981AbXDBV4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:56:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86_64: Switch to SPARSE_VIRTUAL From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: References: <20070401071024.23757.4113.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070401071029.23757.78021.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <200704011246.52238.ak@suse.de> <1175544797.22373.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1175548086.22373.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:56:08 -0700 Message-Id: <1175550968.22373.122.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Martin Bligh , linux-mm@kvack.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:28 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I do not care what its called as long as it > covers all the bases and is not a glaring performance regresssion (like > SPARSEMEM so far). I honestly don't doubt that there are regressions, somewhere. Could you elaborate, and perhaps actually show us some numbers on this? Perhaps instead of adding a completely new model, we can adapt the existing ones somehow. But, without some cold, hard, data, we mere mortals without the 1024-way machines can only guess. ;) -- Dave