Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 20 April 2007 10:35:10 Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >> Rationale:
>> >> - It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
>> >> become very slow when they have to
On Friday 20 April 2007 10:35:10 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Rationale:
> >> - It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
> >> become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
> >>
> >
> >
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Rationale:
>> - It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
>> become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
>>
>
> afaik this is only ever reported on SuSE; I've not heard it on any
> other
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
afaik this is only ever reported on SuSE; I've not heard it on any
other distro...
Even
On Friday 20 April 2007 10:35:10 Måns Rullgård wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
afaik this is only ever
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 20 April 2007 10:35:10 Måns Rullgård wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
become very slow when they have to handle thousands of
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That file had alloc_skb_from_cache() in it, which nothing in the
> vanilla kernel ever invoked. How did it even get there? If it was
> put there for Xen's sake, that stinks because Xen is out of tree.
I think it was included because this is a list of
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:54:52 +0200
> So I'm planning to drop the option and arch/x86_64/kernel/functionlist
Please do so, I'm tired of editing that file every time I remove
something from the tree.
That file had alloc_skb_from_cache() in it, which nothing
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:54:52PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
> I'm thinking about dropping the x86-64 CONFIG_REORDER for 2.6.22.
> The function enabled -ffunction-sections and then tries to reorder
> the executable
>
> While that's in theory a worthy
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Rationale:
>> - It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
>> become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
>>
>
> afaik this is only ever reported on SuSE; I've not heard it on any other
> distro...
It's
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
afaik this is only ever reported on SuSE; I've not heard it on any
other distro...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hallo,
I'm thinking about dropping the x86-64 CONFIG_REORDER for 2.6.22.
The function enabled -ffunction-sections and then tries to reorder
the executable
While that's in theory a worthy goal to save TLB/icache, in practice it
didn't really work out.
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled
Hallo,
I'm thinking about dropping the x86-64 CONFIG_REORDER for 2.6.22.
The function enabled -ffunction-sections and then tries to reorder
the executable
While that's in theory a worthy goal to save TLB/icache, in practice it
didn't really work out.
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
afaik this is only ever reported on SuSE; I've not heard it on any
other distro...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Rationale:
- It cannot be enabled in normal builds because all current lds
become very slow when they have to handle thousands of sections.
afaik this is only ever reported on SuSE; I've not heard it on any other
distro...
It's horribly slow on
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:54:52PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Hallo,
I'm thinking about dropping the x86-64 CONFIG_REORDER for 2.6.22.
The function enabled -ffunction-sections and then tries to reorder
the executable
While that's in theory a worthy goal to save TLB/icache, in practice
From: Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:54:52 +0200
So I'm planning to drop the option and arch/x86_64/kernel/functionlist
Please do so, I'm tired of editing that file every time I remove
something from the tree.
That file had alloc_skb_from_cache() in it, which nothing in
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That file had alloc_skb_from_cache() in it, which nothing in the
vanilla kernel ever invoked. How did it even get there? If it was
put there for Xen's sake, that stinks because Xen is out of tree.
I think it was included because this is a list of all
18 matches
Mail list logo
