On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:54:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Munro >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Catalin Iacob <iacobcata...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > I don't know enough about this to make such a strong recommendation >> > myself, which is why I was only trying to report that bad performance >> > had been observed on some version, not that you shouldn't do it. Any >> > other views on this stronger statement? >> >> Now that the Windows huge pages patch has landed, here is a rebase. I >> took your alternative and tweaked it a tiny bit more. Thoughts? > > + <para> > + Note that, besides explicitly requesting huge pages via > + <varname>huge_pages</varname>, > => I would just say: > "Note that, besides huge pages requested explicitly, ..."
+1 > + In Linux this automatic use is > => ON Linux comma? +1 > + called "transparent huge pages" and is not enabled by default in > + popular distributions as of the time of writing, but since > transparent > > => really ? I don't know if I've ever seen it not enabled. In any case, > that's a strong statement to make (to be disabled in ALL popular > distributions). Argh. > https://blog.nelhage.com/post/transparent-hugepages/ > => It is enabled (”enabled=always”) by default in most Linux distributions. Sorry, right, that was 100% wrong. It would probably be correct to remove the "not", but let's just remove that bit. New version attached. Thanks. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
huge-pages-doc-tweak-v5.patch
Description: Binary data