On 10/10/2011 12:17 PM, Suzuki Poulose wrote:
On 10/10/11 20:45, Scott Wood wrote:
quoted
On 10/10/2011 04:55 AM, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
quoted
The following patch implements the dynamic relocation processing for
PPC32 kernel. relocate() accepts the target virtual address and
relocates
the kernel image to the same.
How much overhead is involved in a true relocatable kernel? Is it worth
preserving the old "relocatable" booke behavior under a different name?
There are '75782' on an ebony kernel with minimal config. So thats a
pretty big
number for small embedded chips. I guess, preserving the 'old
relocatable' (page
aligned approach) would be a good idea for the architectures which can
afford it.
e.g, places where TLB size is 64M or less.
The systems we've been using this option on aren't *that* small -- I was
thinking more about runtime overhead (beyond the time taken at boot to
process relocations).
-Scott