[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D3DC7E.70100@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:47:10 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, vgoyal@...ibm.com,
fastboot@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Jan Kratochvil <lace@...kratochvil.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Linda Wang <lwang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 05:14:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > I guess the practical question is do people see a real performance benefit
> > when loading the kernel at 4MB?
>
> Linus claimed lmbench saw some huge wins. Others showed that for eg,
> a kernel compile took the same amount of time, so take from that what you will..
>
> > Possibly the right solution is to do like I did on x86_64 and simply remove
> > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, and always place the kernel at 4MB, or something like
> > that.
> >
> > The practical question is what to do to keep the complexity from spinning
> > out of control. Removing CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START would seriously help with
> > that.
>
> Given the two primary uses of that option right now are a) the aforementioned
> perf win and b) building kexec kernels, I doubt anyone would miss it once
> we go relocatable ;-)
>
We DO want the performance gain with a conventional bootloader. The
perf win is about the location of the uncompressed kernel, not the
compressed kernel.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists