On January 12, 2026 2:47:46 AM PST, David Laight <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:01:02 -0800 >"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2026-01-08 01:25, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > On x86_64, the physical placement of the kernel is independent from its >> > mapping in the 'High Kernel Mapping' range. This means that even a >> > position dependent kernel built without boot-time relocation support can >> > run from any suitably aligned physical address, and there is no need to >> > make this behavior dependent on whether or not the kernel is virtually >> > relocatable. >> > >> > On i386, the situation is different, given that the physical and virtual >> > load offsets must be equal, and so only a relocatable kernel can be >> > loaded at a physical address that deviates from its build-time default. >> > >> > Clarify this in Kconfig and in the code, and advertise the 64-bit >> > bzImage as loadable at any physical offset regardless of whether >> > CONFIG_RELOCATABLE is set. In practice, this makes little difference, >> > given that it defaults to 'y' and is a prerequisite for EFI_STUB and >> > RANDOMIZE_BASE, but it will help with some future refactoring of the >> > relocation code. >> > >> >> I don't see any reason to support non-relocatable kernels anymore. In fact, >> in >> a patchset I am working on I have already removed it. > >For just 64bit, or 32bit as well? >The 'bloat' for 32bit will be higher due to the lack of pc-relative >addressing. > > David > >> >> -hpa >> >> >
Either. The bloat is strictly boot time.
