On Sat Jul 24 2010 at 19:05:54 +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: > > Didn't anyone else read the mail from a week or so ago containing detailed > > measurements of the overhead? > > It measures overhead of PAE, not turning paddr_t to 64 bits on !PAE i386.
Oh, right. Sun probably fried my brain today and got me confused. > I don't think that paddr_t moving to 64 bits add much overhead. I would That would be my guess too. > > (I'm not 100% sure if I believe the results without further analysis, > > but at least there are benchmarks) > > I am not sure that benchmarking is a matter of believing :) Of course I believe the numbers. That doesn't mean I believe they represent PAE, i.e. that you actually benchmarked the essence of PAE instead of some random side-effects (or implementation bugs). When facts don't match expectations, suspicions arise. (more poetry available per request)
