Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Dec 1998 13:18:27 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Problem with 1G RAM |
| |
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/
| |