From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:21:21 -0600 From: Cort Dougan To: Michel Lanners Cc: paulus@linuxcare.com.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: zeroing pages in the idle task? Message-ID: <20000913222121.K4546@hq.fsmlabs.com> References: <200009122018.WAA00786@piglet.grunz.lu> <200009131951.VAA00816@piglet.grunz.lu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200009131951.VAA00816@piglet.grunz.lu>; from Michel Lanners on Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 09:51:25PM +0200 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: I missed a lot of this thread, this is the first message I picked up on. } To come back to my original question... It's a dead loss on SMP, but it can be just run on UP machines. The main problem was I didn't have enough time to finish it and didn't want to leave something running in the idle task that I hadn't finished studying the effect of. I really wanted to push it up to the freelist since I don't think it's a PPC-only optimization. I never bothered trying to push it since at that point the tree was moving to the stable point and wasn't going to be changing that radically soon. } > - is there any problem with using this feature? } } I didn't have any, but that's only my box then.... Not without a lot of study and testing. I haven't touched the code in a long time... } What do you think, Paul, Cort? It's not a matter of turning it on - it's a matter of making it work again and testing it. } Maybe enabling it by default would be a good choice? It can always be } disabled... } } I'll post a patch on sourceforge. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/