From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964795AbWFWMvk (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:51:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964796AbWFWMvj (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:51:39 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]:60034 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964795AbWFWMvj (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:51:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=kcgF1FD7NolugqZs5ctfaFtKmQGhDXUFXj2y1b55LnmBRdeZqThobKynSJKFjAN9z/7aTmwWEbciNBQnoJjfeMeKsGoRrzfvtzmC8zKcB2ZXMQbyyNrRLGIvQryTpWtdQtSo9cys0mm8oBJx6bUNwFEoIG/ziniLgHPxD8E3zNI= Message-ID: <449BE4E0.6070301@innova-card.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:56:00 +0200 Reply-To: franck.bui-huu@innova-card.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: franck.bui-huu@innova-card.com CC: Mel Gorman , Franck Bui-Huu , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm1 References: <20060621034857.35cfe36f.akpm@osdl.org> <449AB01A.5000608@innova-card.com> <449ABC3E.5070609@innova-card.com> <20060623102037.GA1973@skynet.ie> <449BDCF5.6040808@innova-card.com> In-Reply-To: <449BDCF5.6040808@innova-card.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Franck Bui-Huu Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Franck Bui-Huu wrote: > Mel Gorman wrote: >> On (22/06/06 19:25), Franck Bui-Huu didst pronounce: >>>> I know, but what I'm getting at is that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET may be unnecessary >>>> with flatmem-relax-requirement-for-memory-to-start-at-pfn-0.patch applied. >>> yes it seems so. But ARCH_PFN_OFFSET has been used before your patch >>> has been sent. So your patch seems to be incomplete... >> Difficult to argue with that logic. >> > > sorry, I was just meaning that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET had been introduced to > solve this before your patch has been sent. So the requirement for > memory to start at pfn 0 is already solved. > > Your patch solves the problem in a different way, but it's > incompatible with the current one (ARCH_PFN_OFFSET). > > IMHO the question is now, which method is the best one ? If it's yours > the we probably need to get ride of the previous method and add yours > (but don't forget to modify arch such ARM which are currently using > ARCH_PFN_OFFSET). > maybe these figures can help to make our choice: text data bss dec hex filename 2226384 223824 110624 2560832 271340 vmlinux-arch-pfn-offset-0 2228488 223824 110624 2562936 271b78 vmlinux-arch-pfn-offset-not-0 2226964 223856 110624 2561444 2715a4 vmlinux-out-of-line-pfn-to-page Arch is MIPS and I used gcc 3.4.4 So your solution gives the smallest kernel with my config although the win is only 0.1%. Maybe it would be good to have ARM figures/opinion too. Franck