From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:07:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: [PATCH] head.S fix for unusual load addrs Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2003 09:07:14 -0700, Jesse Barnes said: Jesse> So simply linking with 'ld -q' wouldn't be sufficient? Doesn't that Jesse> produce a binary that will boot w/o elilo changes, but can also be Jesse> relocated? Ah, yes, I had forgotten about -q. It probably would be sufficient. And the backwards-compatibility it would achieve would definitely be a plus. A new concern though: I don't think text-replication will work well with this scheme. If each replica is linked for a different address, function pointers become a performance problem: whenever you call through a function pointer, you'll end up executing on whatever replica initialized the function pointer. Not good. Unless I'm missing something, kernel relocation is therefore a bit of a stillborn idea (unless text-replication really isn't all that important because we all have humongous caches between nodes...). If we do have to go the virtual remapping route, my preference would be to stick the kernel somewhere in region 5 (0xa..). Has anyone tried that? It should work fine in principle (modules already live in that space). --david