Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

Horms
2006-08-08T07:59:09Z

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:23:15AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Horms <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:23PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Horms wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I also agree that it is non-intitive. But I wonder if a cleaner
> >> >fix would be to remove CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START all together. Isn't
> >> >it just a work around for the kernel not being relocatable, or
> >> >are there uses for it that relocation can't replace?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, booting with the 2^n existing bootloaders.
> >
> > Ok, I must be confused then. I though CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START was
> > introduced in order to allow an alternative address to be provided for
> > kdump, and that previously it was hard-coded to some
> > architecture-specific value.
> >
> > What I was really getting as is if it needs to be configurable at
> > compile time or not. Obviously there needs to be some sane default
> > regardless.
>
> CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START has had 2 uses.
> 1) To allow a kernel to run a completely different address for use
> with kexec on panic.
> 2) To allow the kernel to be better aligned for better performance.

Thanks for making that clear

> For maintenance reasons I propose we introduce CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN.
> Which will round our load address up to the nearest aligned address
> and run the kernel there. That is roughly what I am doing on x86_64
> at this point.
>
> s/CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START/CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN/ gives me well defined
> behavior and allows the alignment optimization without getting into
> weird semantics.
>
> Before CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START we _always_ ran the arch/i386 kernel
> where it was loaded and I assumed we always would. Since people have
> realized better aligned kernels can run better this assumption became
> false. Going to CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN allows us to return to the
> simple assumption of always running the kernel where it is loaded
> modulo a little extra alignment.

That sounds reasonable to me. Though it is a little less flexible,
do you think that could be a problem? Perhaps we could have both,
though that would probably be quite confusing.

--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/