From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 13:25:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 13:25:01 -0400 Received: from mx9.port.ru ([194.67.57.19]:30349 "EHLO mx9.port.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 13:24:54 -0400 From: Samium Gromoff <_deepfire@mail.ru> Message-Id: <200109022146.f82LkS904034@-f> Subject: Re: Rik`s ac12-pmap2 vs ac12-vanilla perfcomp To: phillips@bonn-fries.net (Daniel Phillips) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 21:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010902165742Z16375-32383+3005@humbolt.nl.linux.org> from "Daniel Phillips" at Sep 02, 2001 07:04:32 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Phillips wrote: > > One thing that goes away with rmaps is the need to scan process page tables. > It's possible that this takes enough load off L1 cache to produce the effects I feel like that. actually there was a fear that the overhead of reverse map maintenance will overthrow the gain on low loads, but in my case this isnt an issue. > you showed, though it would be surprising. > > (Note that I'm in the "reverse maps are good" camp, and I think Rik's design > is fundamentally correct.) me too... > > -- > Daniel >