Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 22/09/2009
22:08:22:
> > Unfortunately, I am not sensitive to issues surrounding 1TB segments or
how
> > they are currently being used. However, as this clearly helps
performance
> > for large amounts of memory, is it worth providing an option to
> > libhugetlbfs t
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:08:22AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I am not sensitive to issues surrounding 1TB segments or how
> > they are currently being used. However, as this clearly helps performance
> > for large amounts of memory, is it worth providing an option t
Anton Blanchard wrote on 22/09/2009 03:52:35:
> If we are using 1TB segments and we are allowed to randomise the heap, we
can
> put it above 1TB so it is backed by a 1TB segment. Otherwise the heap
will be
> in the bottom 1TB which always uses 256MB segments and this may result in
a
> performance
> Unfortunately, I am not sensitive to issues surrounding 1TB segments or how
> they are currently being used. However, as this clearly helps performance
> for large amounts of memory, is it worth providing an option to
> libhugetlbfs to locate 16MB pages above 1TB when they are otherwise being
>
If we are using 1TB segments and we are allowed to randomise the heap, we can
put it above 1TB so it is backed by a 1TB segment. Otherwise the heap will be
in the bottom 1TB which always uses 256MB segments and this may result in a
performance penalty.
This functionality is disabled when heap ran
