Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-49,: Re: Problem with 1G RAM

# Re: Problem with 1G RAM

Rik van Riel (H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl)
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 13:18:27 +0100 (CET)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Koblinger Egmont: "/proc/nonexistent_pid bug again"
- Previous message: Damon Buckwalter: "Re: "TCPv4 bad checksum" errors: a little more debugging"

On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > > the problem with this is that x86 CISC instructions are inherently more
> > > difficult to fix up runtime :(

[SNIP]

> this is the main problem why i cant see how we could do the btfixup
> thing into x86 without losing these optimizations. (and the compiler
> merges such constant addresses with structure offsets, which makes a
> theoretical immediate value linker even harder) but maybe it already
> exists?

Question is how much performance do we lose this way and
is it worth it or not? I remember people shouting over
the transition to ELF because it cost 5% performance.

This particular piece of flexibilization probably costs
FAR less than that (maybe it's even neglectable) and can
save us (and the poor folks with a 1G+ box) quite a bit
of headaches and grey hairs...

Apart from the technical stories: would it be worth it?

regards,

Rik -- the flu hits, the flu hits, the flu hits -- MORE
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Koblinger Egmont: "/proc/nonexistent_pid bug again"
- Previous message: Damon Buckwalter: "Re: "TCPv4 bad checksum" errors: a little more debugging"