On (24/09/08 21:32), KOSAKI Motohiro didst pronounce:
Someone doing performance analysis on POWER may want it. If they switched to
a large base page size without using hugetlbfs at all and saw the same number
of TLB misses, it could be explained by the lower MMU pagesize. Admittedly,
they should have known the hardware didn't support that pagesize.
I admit it's ppc64-specific. In the latest patch series, I made this a
separate patch so that it could be readily dropped again for this reason.
Maybe an alternative would be to display MMUPageSize *only* where it differs
from KernelPageSize. Would that be better or similarly confusing?
I'm not sure what you mean by it being a bottleneck
I'm ok with this option and dropping the MMUPageSize patch as the user
should already be able to identify that the hardware does not support 64K
base pagesizes. I will leave the name as KernelPageSize so that it is still
difficult to confuse it with MMU page size.
I prefer option 1 as it's easier to parse the presense of information
than infer from the absense of it.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--