Michael Ellerman writes:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 01:03 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Mär 24 2019, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>
>>> > Presumably you have CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 enabled and
>>> > CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>>> > disabled? Was this configuration actually usable?
On Mär 25 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> So I'm inclined to just switch to always using SPARSEMEM on 64-bit
> Book3S, because that's what's well tested and we hardly need more code
> paths to test. Unless anyone has a strong objection, I haven't actually
> benchmarked FLATMEM vs SPARSEMEM on a
Le 25/03/2019 à 12:35, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
Ben Hutchings writes:
On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 01:03 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Mär 24 2019, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Presumably you have CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 enabled and
CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
disabled? Was this configuration actually usable?
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 01:03 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Mär 24 2019, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> > Presumably you have CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 enabled and
>> > CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>> > disabled? Was this configuration actually usable?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> I assume that
Hi, Ben
> Presumably you have CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 enabled and CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> disabled?
> Was this configuration actually usable?
I just noticed these build warnings too. FWIW, I've been using
CONFIG_FLATMEM on my Power Mac G5 for about three years, so I guess
the answer is "yes" (for this
On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 01:03 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 24 2019, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > Presumably you have CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 enabled and
> > CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> > disabled? Was this configuration actually usable?
>
> Why not?
I assume that CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is the default for
On Mär 24 2019, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Presumably you have CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 enabled and CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> disabled? Was this configuration actually usable?
Why not?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA
On Sun, 2019-03-24 at 23:18 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 22 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 01:17:56 UTC, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS only needs to be defined if CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is
> > > enabled, and that was the case before commit 4ffe713b7587
On Mär 22 2019, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 01:17:56 UTC, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS only needs to be defined if CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is
>> enabled, and that was the case before commit 4ffe713b7587
>> ("powerpc/mm: Increase the max addressable memory to 2PB").
>>
On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 01:17:56 UTC, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS only needs to be defined if CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is
> enabled, and that was the case before commit 4ffe713b7587
> ("powerpc/mm: Increase the max addressable memory to 2PB").
>
> On 32-bit systems, where CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is
MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS only needs to be defined if CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is
enabled, and that was the case before commit 4ffe713b7587
("powerpc/mm: Increase the max addressable memory to 2PB").
On 32-bit systems, where CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is not enabled, we now
define it as 46. That is larger than the real
11 matches
Mail list logo
