On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Also, the folks with larger base bage sizes probably don't want a
> FAULT_AROUND_ORDER=4. That's 1MB of fault-around for ppc64, for example.
Actually, I'd expect that they won't mind, because there's no real
extra cost (the costs are indepenent of page size).
For small mappings the mapping size itself will avoid the
fault-around, and for big mappings they'll get the reduced page
faults.
They chose 64kB pages for a reason (although arguably that reason is
"our TLB fills are horrible crap"), they'll be fine with that "let's
try to map a few pages around us".
That said, making it runtime configurable for testing is likely a good
thing anyway, with some hardcoded maximum fault-around size for
sanity.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
