On 04/11/2010 02:52 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Put in a different way: this slow, gradual phsyical process causes data-cache misses to become 'colder and colder': in essence a portion of the worst-case TLB miss cost gets added to the average data-cache miss cost on more and more workloads. (Even without any nested-pagetables or other virtualization considerations.) The CPU can do nothing about this - even if it stays in a golden balance with typical workloads.
This is the essence and which is why we really need transparent hugetlb. Both the tlb and the caches are way to small to handle the millions of pages that are common now.
This is why i think we should think about hugetlb support today and this is why i think we should consider elevating hugetlbs to the next level of built-in Linux VM support.
Agreed, with s/today/yesterday/. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>