From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: RE: [RFC] 4-level page table directories. Message-Id: <200511042142.jA4Lgfg14906@unix-os.sc.intel.com> List-Id: References: <20051027041709.GA13193@attica.americas.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20051027041709.GA13193@attica.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Robin Holt wrote on Friday, November 04, 2005 1:38 PM > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > Luck, Tony wrote on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:31 AM > > > Good to hear that (though I must remember to specify what I mean > > > by "small memory" when talking to SGI ... there are ia64 boxes > > > with only 1G :-) > > > > > > Ken: Any predictions on when a 4-level run might get to the > > > top of your queue for a run with an industry standard transaction > > > benchmark? > > > > It turns out that we have measurable performance regression with > > 4-level page table running industry database benchmark, the penalty > > is ~0.2% (I thought the number would be smaller than 0.2%, but ...). > > Our resolution with this workload is typically 0.05%. > > Can you point me at this benchmark? I hope everyone knows by now what this "industry standard database transaction processing benchmark" is. If not, please google it. Sorry, this is the best I can do without breaking any U.S. law. - Ken