From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270605AbTHAAOY (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:14:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270618AbTHAAOX (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:14:23 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:28122 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270605AbTHAAOW (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:14:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:15:38 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Andrew Morton Cc: mbligh@aracnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Panic on 2.6.0-test1-mm1 Message-ID: <20030801001538.GK15452@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , mbligh@aracnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <5110000.1059489420@[10.10.2.4]> <20030731223710.GI15452@holomorphy.com> <20030731224148.GJ15452@holomorphy.com> <20030731154020.61e15723.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030731154020.61e15723.akpm@osdl.org> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> You may now put the "aggravated" magnet beneath the "wli" position on >> the fridge. On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:40:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I never, ever, at any stage was told that highpmd.patch offered any > benefits wrt lock contention or node locality. I was only told that it > saved a little bit of memory on highmem boxes. The lock contention is unrelated apart from the mangling of pgd_ctor(). The node locality is only important on systems with exaggerated NUMA characteristics, such as the kind Martin and I bench on. On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:40:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > It would be useful to actually tell me what your patches do. And to > provide test results which demonstrate the magnitude of the performance > benefits. I don't believe it would be valuable to push it on the grounds of performance, as the performance characteristics of modern midrange i386 systems don't have such high remote access penalties. The complaint was targetted more at errors in some new incoming patch motivating mine being backed out. -- wli