On 10/10/2011 12:17 PM, Suzuki Poulose wrote: > On 10/10/11 20:45, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 10/10/2011 04:55 AM, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: >>> The following patch implements the dynamic relocation processing for >>> PPC32 kernel. relocate() accepts the target virtual address and >>> relocates >>> the kernel image to the same. >> >> How much overhead is involved in a true relocatable kernel? Is it worth >> preserving the old "relocatable" booke behavior under a different name? > > There are '75782' on an ebony kernel with minimal config. So thats a > pretty big > number for small embedded chips. I guess, preserving the 'old > relocatable' (page > aligned approach) would be a good idea for the architectures which can > afford it. > e.g, places where TLB size is 64M or less.
The systems we've been using this option on aren't *that* small -- I was thinking more about runtime overhead (beyond the time taken at boot to process relocations). -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
