On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:57:35PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:35:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I still have two questions about stuff that came up here:
> > >
> > > * SD/MMC performance: Is this about device access, file systems or both?
> > > I think the file system level stuff is actually the more important
> > > part but I fear that what was discussed is the other one.
> >
> > The discussion didn't get into that level of detail. :-(
>
> That's not reason for a frownie. The TSC discussion is /meant/ to be
> high-level; if you want customer input on what to focus on we can reach
> out to them, but otherwise just measure and optimize. IOW, you get to
> choose what the most important part is.
Fair enough. My point was that the answer was not known, so that
work would need to be done to find the answer.
> > > * highmem: Not sure what this was about. I guess we don't really want
> > > to enable this by default, but some people will want it anyway.
> > > Is this about run-time patching the code out of the kernel?
> >
> > I believe that this is related to LPAE -- the usual 32-bit-only DMA
> > devices in a >32-bit physical address space. But there was also
> > discussion about run-time patching for SMP alternatives, though I am
> > missing how this relates to highmem. Enlightenment?
>
> (Highmem is not just for LPAE, as we discussed earlier it's also
> important to support configurations with more than 1GB if you preserve
> the 1/3 memory split.)
>
> There's was relationship between runtime UP detection and highmem
> discussed in the meeting; the bigger point here is that we want to
> ensure the kernel is stellar at supporting our architectural baseline:
> platforms that are V7-A, SMP, NEON and larger-than-traditional-embedded
> memory profiles.
Thank you for the info!
Thanx, Paul
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
