Re: 2.5.73-mm2

Martin J. Bligh
2003-06-29T00:34:05Z

--Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote (on Saturday, June 28, 2003 17:08:37 +0100):

> On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 08:54:36AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> +config HIGHPMD
>> + bool "Allocate 2nd-level pagetables from highmem"
>> + depends on HIGHMEM64G
>> + help
>> + The VM uses one pmd entry for each pagetable page of physical
>> + memory allocated. For systems with extreme amounts of highmem,
>> + this cannot be tolerated. Setting this option will put
>> + userspace 2nd-level pagetables in highmem.
>
> Does this make sense for !HIGHPTE? In fact does it make sense to
> carry along HIGHPTE as an option still? ..

Last time I measured it, it had about a 10% overhead in kernel time.
Seems like a good thing to keep as an option to me. Bill said he
had some other code to alleviate the overhead, but I don't think
it's merged ... I'd rather see UKVA (permanently map the pagetables
on a per-process basis) merged before it becomes "not an option" -
that gets rid of all the kmapping.

M.