On Mon 5 Mar 2007 07:39, Paul Mundt pondered: > 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.
I don't understand why you think lots of options are a bad thing?? For most embedded targets, people want/need easy knobs to turn to try and optimise the system level performance. I would guess that SH users want to do the same thing? That is what this does - it is just a easy to use knob. -Robin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
