From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266056AbUBKSoU (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:44:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266075AbUBKSoU (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:44:20 -0500 Received: from cs24243203-239.austin.rr.com ([24.243.203.239]:44041 "EHLO raptor.int.mccr.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266056AbUBKSoS convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:44:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:44:16 -0600 From: Dave McCracken To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Luis_Miguel_Garc=EDa?= cc: LINUX KERNEL MAILING LIST Subject: Re: About highmem in 2.6 Message-ID: <116960000.1076525055@[10.1.1.5]> In-Reply-To: <402A6A98.5020404@wanadoo.es> References: <402A6A98.5020404@wanadoo.es> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --On Wednesday, February 11, 2004 18:47:04 +0100 Luis Miguel García wrote: > When I first installed 2.4, someone told me that if I had 1 gb ram it was > better to not use highmem because those extra aditional mb was not worth > the speed penalty of using the feature. > > Sorry for my ignorance (and my sucking english) but must I enable highmem > now with 2.6? or have it any speed penalty althought? I don't know if anyone has actually measured the relative performance, but I'd expect the answer to be the same as 2.4. There is a small but measurable performance penalty for enabling highmem which is higher than the benefit of the extra 128 meg of memory you get when you have 1G. If you have more than 1G it's better to enable highmem. Dave McCracken