> We kernel guys have been asking the distros to ship 64-bit kernels even
> in their 32-bit distros for many years, but concerns of compat issues
> and the desire to deprecate 32-bit userspace seems to have kept that
> from happening.
And now there is another reason: to call 64-bit EFI runtime ser
On 04/29/2013 03:03 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
> wrote:
>>
>> Other than this particular concern, what's the high-level take-away? Is PAE
>> support in the Linux kernel a false promise than distros should not be
>> shipping by default, if a
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 03:03 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Other than this particular concern, what's the high-level take-away? Is
>>> PAE
>>> support in the L
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:48:17PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> It could also print out a friendly message, to
> inform the user they should upgrade to a 64 bit
> kernel to enjoy the use of all of their memory.
Oh, oh, oh!!! Can we use my message:
http://lwn.net/Articles/501769/
OK, maybe i
On 04/29/2013 05:48 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 04/29/2013 06:03 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Seriously, you can compile yourself a 64-bit kernel and continue to
use your 32-bit user-land. And you can complain to whatever distro you
used that it didn't do that in the first place. But we're not goin
On 04/29/2013 06:03 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Seriously, you can compile yourself a 64-bit kernel and continue to
use your 32-bit user-land. And you can complain to whatever distro you
used that it didn't do that in the first place. But we're not going to
bother with trying to tune PAE for some
On 04/26/2013 07:42 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:53:56PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 04/26/2013 07:44 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais wrote:
I initially observed this between kernels 3.2 and 3.5: on 3.2, copying a
180M shared object on the same ext4 filesystem takes 0.6s.
On 04/29/2013 03:03 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
wrote:
Other than this particular concern, what's the high-level take-away? Is PAE
support in the Linux kernel a false promise than distros should not be
shipping by default, if at all? Shoul
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
wrote:
>
> Other than this particular concern, what's the high-level take-away? Is PAE
> support in the Linux kernel a false promise than distros should not be
> shipping by default, if at all? Should it be removed from the kernel
> entirely
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:53:56PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 07:44 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais wrote:
> >I initially observed this between kernels 3.2 and 3.5: on 3.2, copying a
> >180M shared object on the same ext4 filesystem takes 0.6s. On 3.5, it
> >takes between two and three
On 04/26/2013 07:44 PM, Pierre-Loup A. Griffais wrote:
I initially observed this between kernels 3.2 and 3.5: on 3.2, copying a
180M shared object on the same ext4 filesystem takes 0.6s. On 3.5, it
takes between two and three minutes. It looks like a similar throughput
regression happens on any m
11 matches
Mail list logo
