Re: [rfc 08/45] cpu alloc: x86 support

[John Richard Moser]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 November 2007 04:50, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

> You could in theory move the modules, but then you would need to implement
> a full PIC dynamic linker for them  first and also increase runtime overhead
> for them because they would need to use a GOT/PLT.

On x86-64?  The GOT/PLT should stay in cache due to temporal locality. 
The x86-64 instruction set itself handles GOT-relative addressing rather 
well; what's a 1% loss on x86 is like 0.01% on x86-64, so I'm thinking 
100 times better?

I think I got this by `-fpic -pie` compiling nbyte benchmark versus 
fixed position, each with and without on 32-bit (which made about a 1% 
difference) and on 64-bit (which made a 0.01% difference).  It was a 
long time ago.

Still, yeah I know.  Complexity.

(You have the ability to textrel these things too, and just rewrite 
non-PIC, depending on how you feel about that)
--
Bring back the Firefox plushy!
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Is_the_Firefox_plush_gone_for_good
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322367
-
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/