Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:47:54 +0100 | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Subject | Re: 2G memory split |
| |
Jens Axboe writes: > Hi, > > It does annoy me that any 1G i386 machine will end up with 1/8th of the > memory as highmem. A patch like this one has been used in various places > since the early 2.4 days at least, is there a reason why it isn't merged > yet? Note I just hacked this one up, but similar patches abound I'm > sure. Bugs are mine. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> > > diff --git a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig > index d849c68..0b2457b 100644 > --- a/arch/i386/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig > @@ -444,6 +464,24 @@ config HIGHMEM64G > > endchoice > > +choice > + depends on NOHIGHMEM > + prompt "Memory split" > + default DEFAULT_3G > + help > + Select the wanted split between kernel and user memory. On a 1G > + machine, the 3G/1G default split will result in 128MiB of high > + memory. Selecting a 2G/2G split will make all of memory available > + as low memory. Note that this will make your kernel incompatible > + with binary only kernel modules.
2G/2G is not the only viable alternative. On my 1GB x86 box I'm using "lowmem1g" patches for both 2.4 and 2.6, which results in 2.75G for user-space. I'm sure others have other preferences. Any standard option for this should either have several hard-coded alternatives, or should support arbitrary values (within reason).
(See http://www.csd.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/*/patch-i386-lowmem1g-* if you're interested.)
/Mikael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |