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 Aug 2001 05:49:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 05:49:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.port.ru ([194.67.57.12]:46087 "EHLO mx2.port.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 05:49:00 -0400 From: "Samium Gromoff" <_deepfire@mail.ru> To: m.luca@iname.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [FAQ?] More ram=less performance (maximum cacheable RAM) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: [195.34.27.180] Reply-To: "Samium Gromoff" <_deepfire@mail.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:49:14 +0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > It also has nothing to do with Linux. Some >motherboard's TAG RAM do not > > allow for caching more than xMB. > > I'm just proposing to update the FAQ to help people >like me > that thinking to gain speed doubling the system ram >have seen > a severe performance drop for certain task like >compiling the > kernel . yes, it have nothing to do with linux, but if we can improve linux behaviour in the case, i think we should do it (so in the zone approach people even wouldn`t bother) ... -- cheers, Samium Gromoff