Re: [Fastboot] [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > > There is one outstanding issue where I am probably requiring too much
> > alignment
> > > on the arch/i386 kernel.  
> > There was posts awhile ago about optimizing the kernel performance by
> > loading it at a 4MB offset.  
> >
> > http://www.lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/23/189
> >
> > Your changes breaks that on i386 (not aligned on a 4MB boundary).  But a
> > 5MB offset works.  Is that the correct update or does that break the
> > original idea?
>
> That patch should still apply and work as described.
>
> Actually when this stuipd cold I have stops slowing me down,
> and I fix the alignment to what it really needs to be ~= 8KB.
>
> Then bootloaders should be able to make the decision.
>
> HPA Does that sound at all interesting?

I'm sorry, it's not clear to me what you're asking here.

The bootloaders will load bzImage at the 1 MB point, and it's up to the 
decompressor to locate it appropriately.  It has (correctly) been 
pointed out that it would be faster if the decompressed kernel is 
located to the 4 MB point -- large pages don't work below 2/4 MB due to 
interference with the fixed MTRRs -- but that's doesn't affect the boot 
protocol in any way.

I was under the impression that your relocatable patches allows the boot 
loader to load the bzImage at a different address than the usual 
0x100000; but again, that shouldn't affect the kernel's final resting place.

	-hpa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/