On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 13:42 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > It's the standard space/time tradeoff. Once solution wants more > storage, the other wants more faults. > > Note scanners can use A/D bits which are cheaper than faults. I'm not convinced.. the scanner will still consume time even if the system is perfectly balanced -- it has to in order to determine this. So sure, A/D/other page table magic can make scanners faster than faults however you only need faults when you're actually going to migrate a task. Whereas you always need to scan, even in the stable state. So while the per-instance times might be in favour of scanning, I'm thinking the accumulated time is in favour of faults. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href