On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 06:28:53 -0400 (EDT), Bret Busby wrote: > > On 15/08/2015, Stephen Powell <zlinux...@wowway.com> wrote: >> ... >> My IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop, which is still quite usable, >> would be a brick if I ran Ubuntu. It has a Pentium M >> processor in it, and that processor does not have the PAE >> feature. > ... > a solution to the PAE problem, relating to your Pentium M CPU, was > mentioned, if you would be bothered to do anything about that. > ...
I don't wish to "stir the pot" again; but when I make a mistake, I need to correct it. You are right, Mr. Busby. The IBM ThinkPad X31 laptop which I possess contains a Pentium M processor which *does* support PAE but does not *advertise* that it supports PAE. Therefore, a PAE-requiring Linux kernel *will* run successfully on this processor if the "forcepae" kernel boot parameter is passed. Therefore, I was wrong when I said that this laptop would be a "brick" if I were running Ubuntu. However, there are 32-bit Intel-compatible processors out there which neither advertise nor possess PAE capabilities. Therefore, a non-PAE kernel is still needed for them. Furtherfore, a non-PAE kernel is useful even on PAE-capable hardware. The main purpose of PAE is to address memory above 4G. But if the machine has less than 4G of memory, what does a PAE-capable kernel buy you? PAE-capable kernels tend to be a bit bigger, all other things being equal, than non-PAE kernels, which chews up more precious memory with no obvious benefit. Furthermore, use of the "forcepae" option to force a PAE kernel to run on a processor which supports PAE but does not advertise such support has drawbacks. It taints the kernel, which disables lock debugging, for example. For these reasons, I believe that a non-PAE kernel is still needed; and I applaud Debian for providing one. Respectfully, -- .''`. Stephen Powell <zlinux...@wowway.com> : :' : `. `'` `-