On Jun 11 2007 13:51, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> (yay, 3.09 bogomips and a totally incapable processor :p)
>> Have not tried more recent kernels yet though.
>
>Too bad I don't still have access to the 0.59 bogomips "double sigma"
>386 machine that had the dubious honor of
On Jun 11 2007 13:51, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
(yay, 3.09 bogomips and a totally incapable processor :p)
Have not tried more recent kernels yet though.
Too bad I don't still have access to the 0.59 bogomips double sigma
386 machine that had the dubious honor of being the
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> (yay, 3.09 bogomips and a totally incapable processor :p)
> Have not tried more recent kernels yet though.
Too bad I don't still have access to the 0.59 bogomips "double sigma"
386 machine that had the dubious honor of being the slowest Linux
machine in the world for quite
On Jun 11 2007 12:01, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
>>> would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
>>> the issue of the handful
On 06/11/2007 10:07 PM, Rene Herman wrote:
But, it's just a default anyway. Would it be considered beneficial to
more explicitly provide a few options through a config menu, something
like the attached?
Ehm, so now where did that long help actually end up? :-|
If the notion is considered
On 06/11/2007 08:46 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:19:57PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> >Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
> >would probably be a more reasonable base. Of
> Do such beasts even exist ? My memories of low-memory x86en I had
> only allowed power of 2 memory sizes.
They existed. If you had two memory banks you could load 4MB and 1MB. If
you had a single set of memory sockets then you got powers of two
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
>> would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
>> the issue of the handful of machines with memory holes at 15-16 MB.
>
>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:19:57PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> >Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
> >would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
> > the issue of the
On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
>would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
> the issue of the handful of machines with memory holes at 15-16 MB.
How will this work at all with a
On 06/11/2007 07:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Aligning the kernel image on 4M could gain an additional TLB entry if
the kernel image would fit in one (4M aligned) hugepage, but not in the
3M that's left after loading the kernel at 1M physical. And that stuff
about the
Rene Herman wrote:
>
> Aligning the kernel image on 4M could gain an additional TLB entry if
> the kernel image would fit in one (4M aligned) hugepage, but not in the
> 3M that's left after loading the kernel at 1M physical. And that stuff
> about the MTRRs...
>
Yup. Most CPUs won't actually
On 06/11/2007 07:20 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
FWIW, waay back when (sometime last year if memory serves)
Linus suggested changing the default to 0x100 for all x86.
The reasoning was some performance microoptimisation regarding
4MB aligned TLBs iirc.
Yup. Or rather, he suggested 4M (0x40):
Dave Jones wrote:
>
> FWIW, waay back when (sometime last year if memory serves)
> Linus suggested changing the default to 0x100 for all x86.
> The reasoning was some performance microoptimisation regarding
> 4MB aligned TLBs iirc.
>
> The details have long since evaded my memory, but as an
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:15:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:32:10 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > We are seeing corruption of the decompressed kernel. It is suspected
> > that this is platform specific as it has yet to be seen on any
>
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:32:10 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We are seeing corruption of the decompressed kernel. It is suspected
> that this is platform specific as it has yet to be seen on any
> other x86. Move the kernel to the 16MB boundary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:32:10 +0100 Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are seeing corruption of the decompressed kernel. It is suspected
that this is platform specific as it has yet to be seen on any
other x86. Move the kernel to the 16MB boundary.
Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:15:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:32:10 +0100 Andy Whitcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are seeing corruption of the decompressed kernel. It is suspected
that this is platform specific as it has yet to be seen on any
other
Dave Jones wrote:
FWIW, waay back when (sometime last year if memory serves)
Linus suggested changing the default to 0x100 for all x86.
The reasoning was some performance microoptimisation regarding
4MB aligned TLBs iirc.
The details have long since evaded my memory, but as an
On 06/11/2007 07:20 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
FWIW, waay back when (sometime last year if memory serves)
Linus suggested changing the default to 0x100 for all x86.
The reasoning was some performance microoptimisation regarding
4MB aligned TLBs iirc.
Yup. Or rather, he suggested 4M (0x40):
Rene Herman wrote:
Aligning the kernel image on 4M could gain an additional TLB entry if
the kernel image would fit in one (4M aligned) hugepage, but not in the
3M that's left after loading the kernel at 1M physical. And that stuff
about the MTRRs...
Yup. Most CPUs won't actually use a
On 06/11/2007 07:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Aligning the kernel image on 4M could gain an additional TLB entry if
the kernel image would fit in one (4M aligned) hugepage, but not in the
3M that's left after loading the kernel at 1M physical. And that stuff
about the
On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
the issue of the handful of machines with memory holes at 15-16 MB.
How will this work at all with a 5
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:19:57PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
the issue of the handful of
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
the issue of the handful of machines with memory holes at 15-16 MB.
How will
Do such beasts even exist ? My memories of low-memory x86en I had
only allowed power of 2 memory sizes.
They existed. If you had two memory banks you could load 4MB and 1MB. If
you had a single set of memory sockets then you got powers of two
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 06/11/2007 08:46 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:19:57PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB
On 06/11/2007 10:07 PM, Rene Herman wrote:
But, it's just a default anyway. Would it be considered beneficial to
more explicitly provide a few options through a config menu, something
like the attached?
Ehm, so now where did that long help actually end up? :-|
If the notion is considered
On Jun 11 2007 12:01, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 11 2007 10:36, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Picking the 16 MB base is a bit obnoxious on small-memory machines, 4 MB
would probably be a more reasonable base. Of course, 16 MB would avoid
the issue of the handful of machines
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
(yay, 3.09 bogomips and a totally incapable processor :p)
Have not tried more recent kernels yet though.
Too bad I don't still have access to the 0.59 bogomips double sigma
386 machine that had the dubious honor of being the slowest Linux
machine in the world for quite a
30 matches
Mail list logo
