From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:19:13 +1000 From: Anton Blanchard To: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: ppc64 module CRC relocation fix causes perf issues Message-ID: <20130726111913.201ab9d4@kryten> In-Reply-To: <20130725130212.GA19366@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20130718140045.6794ecd5@kryten> <1374274770.5357.33@snotra> <20130725083427.56e36010@kryten> <1374707665.6142.18.camel@pasglop> <20130725130212.GA19366@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Scott Wood , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Neil, > Sorry I'm a bit late to the thread, I've ben swamped. Has someone > tested this with kexec/kdump? Thats why the origional patch was > created, because when kexec loads the kernel at a different physical > address, the relocations messed with the module crc's, and modules > couldn't load during the kexec boot. Assuming that kernaddr_start > gets set appropriately during boot, using PHYSICAL_START should be > fine, but I wanted to check, and don't currently have access to a > powerpc system to do so. Neil I tested a relocatable kernel forced to run at a non zero physical address (ie basically kdump). I verified CRCs were bad with your original patch backed out, and were good with this patch applied. Anton