From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:41:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:41:48 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:37311 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 14:41:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:38:23 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Alan Cox , William Lee Irwin III cc: "M. Edward Borasky" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea@suse.de, riel@surriel.com, torvalds@transmeta.com, akpm@zip.com.au Subject: Re: Have the 2.4 kernel memory management problems on large machines been fixed? Message-ID: <367710000.1022092703@flay> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Fixing the application to use clone() not 4000 individual sets of page > tables might not be a bad plan either. Oracle !*#$(*^ #(*%^(#*^6 &@^@* #^#*^ %#%. > Do each of your tasks map the stuff at the same address. If you are > assuming this how do you plan to handle the person who doesn't. You won't > be able to share page tables then ? I think so. They're also hardlocked in memory which makes life easier. > Can you even make that work -before- the customers have all upgraded > anyway ? Given that we're selling a new line of machines based on this now, I'd guess it'll be 5 years before they're all upgraded. On the other hand, I think they'll lynch us if Linux doesn't work properly on these type of machines within the next year ;-) But, yes, I still think it's worth it. Hammer is a great promise, but it's just not here right now, and I don't think we'll have production level 8-way and 16-way machines for at least a year ... M.