Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:52:47 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@vger.timpanogas.org>
To: Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Installing kernel 2.4
Message-ID: <20001108115247.A11377@vger.timpanogas.org>
In-Reply-To: <200011081343.HAA341140@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200011081343.HAA341140@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>; from pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 07:43:29AM -0600
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 07:43:29AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> ---------  Received message begins Here  ---------
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:25:56AM +0000, davej@suse.de wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If the compiler always aligned all functions and data on 16 byte
> > > > boundries (NetWare)  for all i386 code, it would run a lot faster.
> > > 
> > > Except on architectures where 16 byte alignment isn't optimal.
> > > 
> > > > Cache line alignment could be an option in the loader .... after all,
> > > > it's hte loader that locates data in memory.  If Linux were PE based,
> > > > relocation logic would be a snap with this model (like NT).
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting multiple files of differing alignments packed into
> > > a single kernel image, and have the loader select the correct one at
> > > runtime ? I really hope I've misinterpreted your intention.
> > 
> > Or more practically, a smart loader than could select a kernel image
> > based on arch and auto-detect to load the correct image. I don't really
> > think it matters much what mechanism is used.   
> > 
> > What makes more sense is to pack multiple segments for different 
> > processor architecures into a single executable package, and have the 
> > loader pick the right one (the NT model).  It could be used for 
> > SMP and non-SMP images, though, as well as i386, i586, i686, etc.  
> 
> Sure.. and it will also be able to boot on Alpha/Sparc/PPC....:)
> 
> The best is to have the installer (person) to select the primary
> archecture from a CD. There will NOT be a single boot loader that will
> work for all systems. At best, there will have to be one per CPU family,
> but more likely, one per BIOS structure. This is the only thing that can
> determine the primary boot.
> 
> The primary boot can then determine which CPU type (starting with the
> smallest common CPU), and set flags for a kernel (minimal kernel) load.
> During the startup of THAT kernel then the selection of target RPM can
> be made that would install a kernel for the specific architetcure. After
> a (minimal?) system install, a reboot would be necessary.
> 
> It actually seems like it would be simpler to use the minimal kernel
> to rebuild the kernel for the local architecture. MUCH less work.
> This still requires a CPU family selection by the person doing the install.
> Nothing will get around that.


I am hesitant to jump in since hpa is working on something like this.  I 
think I would like to wait and see what he puts out.  If he would like
for me in my spare time to help him with it, I think I'd love to.

Jeff

> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse I Pollard, II
> Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
> 
> Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/