From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266267AbUBLE1Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:27:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266268AbUBLE1X (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:27:23 -0500 Received: from hq.pm.waw.pl ([195.116.170.10]:27058 "EHLO hq.pm.waw.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266267AbUBLE1W (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:27:22 -0500 To: Bongani Hlope Cc: Mark de Vries , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: About highmem in 2.6 References: <1o6EZ-2zO-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <1o7AZ-3PD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <402A7EC6.7010003@nl.tiscali.com> <20040211212858.2ce1a17d.bonganilinux@mweb.co.za> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:02:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20040211212858.2ce1a17d.bonganilinux@mweb.co.za> (Bongani Hlope's message of "Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:28:58 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bongani Hlope writes: > There is nothing wrong with that patch, the problem with Highmem support > on x86 is that is uses an Intel hack to address the full 1Gb of memory, > which make memory access a bit slower. The question is, does the 128Mb > additional memory worth that penalty? 2GB/2GB split doesn't use any Intel hack nor highmem. In fact for 1 GB of RAM I use a little different split which covers the whole RAM and gives more virtual RAM, something like 1.2/2.8 GB. -- Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH