Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

[H. Peter Anvin]

Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 05:14:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>  > I guess the practical question is do people see a real performance benefit
>  > when loading the kernel at 4MB?
>
> Linus claimed lmbench saw some huge wins. Others showed that for eg,
> a kernel compile took the same amount of time, so take from that what you will..
>
>  > Possibly the right solution is to do like I did on x86_64 and simply remove
>  > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START, and always place the kernel at 4MB, or something like
>  > that.
>  > 
>  > The practical question is what to do to keep the complexity from spinning
>  > out of control.  Removing CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START would seriously help with
>  > that.
>
> Given the two primary uses of that option right now are a) the aforementioned
> perf win and b) building kexec kernels, I doubt anyone would miss it once
> we go relocatable ;-)

We DO want the performance gain with a conventional bootloader.  The 
perf win is about the location of the uncompressed kernel, not the 
compressed kernel.

	-hpa

-
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/