[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm 1/5] Blackfin: blackfin architecture patch update
    On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:32:07PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
    > Paul Mundt wrote:
    > >>+comment "Memory Optimizations"
    > >>+
    > >>+config I_ENTRY_L1
    > >>+ bool "Locate interrupt entry code in L1 Memory"
    > >>+ default y
    > >>+ help
    > >>+ If enabled interrupt entry code (STORE/RESTORE CONTEXT) is linked
    > >>+ into L1 instruction memory.(less latency)
    > >>+
    > >Wow, this is really crying out for a special linker section with slightly
    > >more intelligent relocation logic. You should flag the performance
    > >critical parts to be located in L1 memory directly with a section
    > >attribute, rather than making everything selectable. If you overflow you
    > >can simply spill in to main memory.
    > This is done intentionally, because it's also possible for user code to
    > be loaded into L1 memory. We want to give users the option to avoid
    > filling it all up with kernel code.
    So then why not make the userspace component of it optional and allow a size
    cap for kernel usage that's configurable if it's enabled? This degree of
    abstraction is almost worse than no abstraction.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-05 13:45    [W:0.024 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site