From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx125.postini.com [74.125.245.125]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBEDA6B0032 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id bv4so345652qab.13 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:19:24 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier. Message-ID: <20130823141924.GA3277@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130822033234.GA2413@htj.dyndns.org> <1377186729.10300.643.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130822183130.GA3490@mtj.dyndns.org> <1377202292.10300.693.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130822202158.GD3490@mtj.dyndns.org> <1377205598.10300.715.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130822212111.GF3490@mtj.dyndns.org> <1377209861.10300.756.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130823130440.GC10322@mtj.dyndns.org> <3ee58764-21c2-4df4-9353-54799a6a3d7b@email.android.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3ee58764-21c2-4df4-9353-54799a6a3d7b@email.android.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Toshi Kani , Zhang Yanfei , Tang Chen , konrad.wilk@oracle.com, robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, rjw@sisk.pl, lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, trenn@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, jiang.liu@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org, mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com, yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:08:55PM +0200, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > What is the point of 1G+MTRR? If there are caching differences the > TLB will fracture the pages anyway. Ah, right. Consuming less memory / cachelines would still be a small advantage tho unless creating split TLB from larger mapping is noticeably less efficient. If the extra logic to do that is small, which I think it'd be, it'd be a gain at almost no cost. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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: email@kvack.org