Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm/huge_memory: use new hashtable implementation

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:

> In this case, the downside is that you'll waste 8KB if hugepages aren't available,
> but the upside is that you'll have one less dereference when accessing the
> hashtable.
> 
> If the 8KB saving is preferable here I'll drop the patch and come back when
> dynamic hashtable is supported.
> 

If a distro releases with CONFIG_TRANSPARNET_HUGEPAGE=y and a user is 
running on a processor that does not support pse then this just cost them 
8KB for no reason.  The overhead by simply enabling 
CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is worse in this scenario, but this is whole 
reason for having the dynamic allocation in the original code.  If there's 
a compelling reason for why we want this change, then that fact should at 
least be documented.

Could you propose a v2 that includes fixes for the other problems that 
were mentioned?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/