On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:56:58AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > 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? :)
TimeSys shipped their kernel with swapping fix as far as I know (Jason plyed with it recently). We'd better not assume what people try to do with their old 8xx's :) > > > 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/ > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-embedded mailing list > Linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
