Re: 2G memory split

[Mikael Pettersson]

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@xxxxxxx>
 > 
 > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/