[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb461dde0df3eaf0bed949eebf0657b227431bb3.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:21:16 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc: alex@...ti.fr, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>, zong.li@...ive.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] riscv: Move kernel mapping to vmalloc zone
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:48 -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > Why ? Branch distance limits ? You can't use trampolines ?
>
> Nothing fundamental, it's just that we don't have a large code model in the C
> compiler. As a result all the global symbols are resolved as 32-bit
> PC-relative accesses. We could fix this with a fast large code model, but then
> the kernel would need to relax global symbol references in modules and we don't
> even do that for the simple code models we have now. FWIW, some of the
> proposed large code models are essentially just split-PLT/GOT and therefor
> don't require relaxation, but at that point we're essentially PIC until we
> have more that 2GiB of kernel text -- and even then, we keep all the
> performance issues.
My memory might be out of date but I *think* we do it on powerpc
without going to a large code model, but just having the in-kernel
linker insert trampolines.
Cheers,
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists