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 17:20:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 17:20:03 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:29330 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 May 2002 17:20:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:18:54 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: William Lee Irwin III , Linus Torvalds cc: Alan Cox , "M. Edward Borasky" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea@suse.de, riel@surriel.com, akpm@zip.com.au Subject: Re: Have the 2.4 kernel memory management problems on large machines been fixed? Message-ID: <384590000.1022102334@flay> In-Reply-To: <20020522203024.GZ2035@holomorphy.com> 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 >> The solution really is a "don't do it then" kind of thing. If you have >> 5000 processes that all want to map a big shared memory area, and you >> don't want to upgrade your CPU's, it's a _whole_ lot easier to just have a >> magic "map_large_page()" system call, and start using the 2MB page support >> of the x86. > > map_large_page() sounds decent, though I don't really know how easy > it'll be to get apps to cooperate. I suspect it's easier when the > answer is "the app crashed" as opposed to "the kernel crashed". If we could get the apps (well, Oracle) to co-operate, we could just use clone ;-) Having this transparent for shmem segments would be really nice. M.