From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:46:29 +0000 Subject: Re: larger default page sizes... Message-Id: <20080324.144629.137399000.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: <20080324.133722.38645342.davem@davemloft.net> <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE5B88C@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE5B88C@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: tony.luck@intel.com Cc: clameter@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org From: "Luck, Tony" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:25:11 -0700 > When memory capacity is measured in hundreds of GB, then > a larger page size doesn't look so ridiculous. We have hugepages and such for a reason. And this can be made more dynamic and flexible, as needed. Increasing the page size is a "stick your head in the sand" type solution by my book. Especially when you can make the hugepage facility stronger and thus get what you want without the memory wastage side effects.