Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
I have done some tests which indicate a couple of very basic common tools
don't do much zero-page activity (ie. kbuild). And also combined with some
logical arguments to say that a "sane" app wouldn't be using zero_page much.
(basically -- if the app cares about memory or cache footprint and is using
many pages of zeroes, then it should have a more compressed representation
of zeroes anyway).
One of the things that zero-page has been used for is absolutely *huge*
(but sparse) arrays in Fortan programs.
At least in traditional fortran, it was very hard to do dynamic
allocations, so people would allocate the *maximum* array statically, and
then not necessarily use everything. I don't know if the pages ever even
got paged in, but this is the kind of usage which is *not* insane.
Linus
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Nick Piggin
- Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
- From: Andrew Morton
- remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Nick Piggin
- Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- From: Nick Piggin
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.22.6: kernel BUG at fs/locks.c:171
- Next by Date: Re: howto boost write(2) performance?
- Previous by thread: Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Next by thread: Re: remove zero_page (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Index(es):