On Tuesday 01 May 2007 19:00:46 Bill Irwin wrote:
> Bill Irwin a écrit :
> >> as a stopgap measure, but I'm not all that interested in grabbing patch
> >> credits where others could do it easily enough. Either of the config
> >> alterations is fine by me as they now stand; maybe Eric Dumazet might
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 19:00:46 Bill Irwin wrote:
Bill Irwin a écrit :
as a stopgap measure, but I'm not all that interested in grabbing patch
credits where others could do it easily enough. Either of the config
alterations is fine by me as they now stand; maybe Eric Dumazet might
care to
Eric W. Biederman a écrit :
Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Only 1GB-aligned kernel/user splits are now handled for PAE. The
2GB/2GB split attempts to avoid aliasing vmallocspace with the 1:1
mapping for physical memory by using an actual split of 1.875/2.125
to accommodate 128MB of
Bill Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Only 1GB-aligned kernel/user splits are now handled for PAE. The
> 2GB/2GB split attempts to avoid aliasing vmallocspace with the 1:1
> mapping for physical memory by using an actual split of 1.875/2.125
> to accommodate 128MB of vmallocspace out of what
Bill Irwin a écrit :
>> as a stopgap measure, but I'm not all that interested in grabbing patch
>> credits where others could do it easily enough. Either of the config
>> alterations is fine by me as they now stand; maybe Eric Dumazet might
>> care to do something like my suggestion at some point.
Bill Irwin a écrit :
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Hum... We lose a usefull 2G/2G split. Should'nt we use a patch to change
PAGE_OFFSET to 0x800 instead of 0x7800 and keep 2G/2G split ?
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
I
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
..
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:32:33AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
You need to go search the archives and read the *extensive* thread
on this from when it was introduced. Lots of high profile kernel
developers were in on this one.
Various good points were raised. The
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> There's some sort of insanity going on here. Since when is 0x7800
>> a 2GB/2GB split? Mark, dare I ask what you were thinking? That should
>> be VMSPLIT_2G_OPT for 2GB laptops analogously to VMSPLIT_3G_OPT, if
>> nothing else, as it's certainly not 2GB/2GB.
On
Bill Irwin wrote:
I don't mind so long as we're not letting doorstop configs through. I'd
probably do something more like
Index: sched/arch/i386/Kconfig
===
--- sched.orig/arch/i386/Kconfig2007-05-01 04:35:47.065162310
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Hum... We lose a usefull 2G/2G split. Should'nt we use a patch to change
>> PAGE_OFFSET to 0x800 instead of 0x7800 and keep 2G/2G split ?
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I dropped the patch for
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Hum... We lose a usefull 2G/2G split. Should'nt we use a patch to change
PAGE_OFFSET to 0x800 instead of 0x7800 and keep 2G/2G split ?
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
I dropped the patch for now.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman
Bill Irwin wrote:
I don't mind so long as we're not letting doorstop configs through. I'd
probably do something more like
Index: sched/arch/i386/Kconfig
===
--- sched.orig/arch/i386/Kconfig2007-05-01 04:35:47.065162310
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
There's some sort of insanity going on here. Since when is 0x7800
a 2GB/2GB split? Mark, dare I ask what you were thinking? That should
be VMSPLIT_2G_OPT for 2GB laptops analogously to VMSPLIT_3G_OPT, if
nothing else, as it's certainly not 2GB/2GB.
On Tue, May
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
..
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:32:33AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
You need to go search the archives and read the *extensive* thread
on this from when it was introduced. Lots of high profile kernel
developers were in on this one.
Various good points were raised. The
Bill Irwin a écrit :
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Hum... We lose a usefull 2G/2G split. Should'nt we use a patch to change
PAGE_OFFSET to 0x800 instead of 0x7800 and keep 2G/2G split ?
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
I
Bill Irwin a écrit :
as a stopgap measure, but I'm not all that interested in grabbing patch
credits where others could do it easily enough. Either of the config
alterations is fine by me as they now stand; maybe Eric Dumazet might
care to do something like my suggestion at some point.
On
Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only 1GB-aligned kernel/user splits are now handled for PAE. The
2GB/2GB split attempts to avoid aliasing vmallocspace with the 1:1
mapping for physical memory by using an actual split of 1.875/2.125
to accommodate 128MB of vmallocspace out of what would
Eric W. Biederman a écrit :
Bill Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only 1GB-aligned kernel/user splits are now handled for PAE. The
2GB/2GB split attempts to avoid aliasing vmallocspace with the 1:1
mapping for physical memory by using an actual split of 1.875/2.125
to accommodate 128MB of
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
>> on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
>> so require !X86_PAE
>>
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Andi Kleen a ?crit :
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
> >on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
> >so require !X86_PAE
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eric
William Lee Irwin III a ?crit :
>> There's some sort of insanity going on here. Since when is 0x7800
>> a 2GB/2GB split? Mark, dare I ask what you were thinking? That should
>> be VMSPLIT_2G_OPT for 2GB laptops analogously to VMSPLIT_3G_OPT, if
>> nothing else, as it's certainly not 2GB/2GB.
William Lee Irwin III a écrit :
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
> on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
> so require !X86_PAE
> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
Andi Kleen a écrit :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/Kconfig |1 +
1 files changed, 1
Andi Kleen a écrit :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/i386/Kconfig |1 +
1 files changed, 1
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
William Lee Irwin III a écrit :
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman
William Lee Irwin III a ?crit :
There's some sort of insanity going on here. Since when is 0x7800
a 2GB/2GB split? Mark, dare I ask what you were thinking? That should
be VMSPLIT_2G_OPT for 2GB laptops analogously to VMSPLIT_3G_OPT, if
nothing else, as it's certainly not 2GB/2GB.
On Tue,
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:26:23AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Andi Kleen a ?crit :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman
William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:58:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When in PAE mode we require that the user kernel divide to be
on a 1G boundary. The 2G/2G split does not have that property
so require !X86_PAE
Signed-off-by:
32 matches
Mail list logo
