On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> --Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote (on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 14:42:38 +0100):
> >
> > Which is indeed a further disincentive against shared page tables.
>
> Or shared pagetables a disincentive to randomizing the mmap space ;-)
Fair point!
> They're incompatible, but you could be left to choose one or the other
> via config option.
Wouldn't need config option: there's /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
for the whole running system, compatibility check on the ELFs run, and
the infinite stack rlimit: enough ways to suppress randomization if it
doesn't suit you.
> 3% on "a certain industry-standard database benchmark" (cough) is huge,
> and we expect the benefit for PPC64 will be larger as we can share the
> underlying hardware PTEs without TLB flushing as well.
Okay - and you're implying that 3% comes from _using_ the shared page
tables, rather than from avoiding the fork/exit overhead of setting
them up and tearing them down. And it can't use huge TLB pages
because... fragmentation?
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |