On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:59:26PM +0200, David Jander wrote: > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:55, Dan Malek wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > The following is an attempt to fix swapping on 8xx by not touching > > > _PAGE_ACCESSED bit if the page is not present. > > > > Ugh .... I suppose. I hate assembler code macros ....... > > Somehow, "swapping" and "8xx" just don't belong together. > > Well, at least it sounds ugly together, but it is also at least conceiveable. > There seem to be people who use PCMCIA for an IDE interface, so swapping may > become desireable in some cases.
I think Dan might be in the camp that says a properly designed embedded system won't need to swap. And when I hear about how people do try and swap on systems like this, I really start agreeing. Maybe we could make 8xx just select SWAP=n? :) > > I'm tempted to add a configuration option that is the complete > > opposite of this and assumes are really embedded system. > > Mark pages as always accessed, data pages as always dirty, > > and you can eliminate lots of TLB faults in systems that are > > fairly static. > > It sounds tempting indeed, but should you really notice a performance > increase > out of this? Compared to 8xx in 2.6 today? Absolutely. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/