On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:10:46PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/12/2010 01:08 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:02:34PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> The only scenario I can see where it degrades is that you have a dcache > >> load that spills over to all of memory, then falls back leaving a pinned > >> page in every huge frame. It can happen, but I don't see it as a likely > >> scenario. But maybe I'm missing something. > >> > > And in my understanding this is exactly the scenario that kernelcore= > > should prevent from ever materialize. Providing math guarantees > > without kernelcore= is probably futile. > > > > Well, that forces the user to make a different boot-time tradeoff. It's > unsatisfying. Well this is just about the math guarantee, like disabling memory overcommit to have better guarantee not to run into the oom killer... most people won't need this but it can address the math concerns. I think it's enough if people wants a guarantee and it won't require using nonlinear mapping for kernel. -- 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>