> > I suppose from the single-threaded point of view, it could be. Maybe we It's not only for single threaded. Consider the "has to wait a long time for a lock" problem Rik pointed out. With that multiple threads are always better. > could look at this a bit differently. What if we allow processes to > choose their collapse mechanism on fork? That way, the system could > default to using the standard khugepaged mechanism, but we could request > that processes handle collapses themselves if we want. Overall, I don't > think that would add too much overhead to what I've already proposed > here, and it gives us more flexibility. We already have too many VM tunables. Better would be to switch automatically somehow. I guess you could use some kind of work stealing scheduler, but these are fairly complicated. Maybe some simpler heuristics can be found. BTW my thinking has been usually to actually use more khugepageds to scan large address spaces faster. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>