Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757666AbXJ3UCN (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:02:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753975AbXJ3UB6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:01:58 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:39339 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753287AbXJ3UB6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:01:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:00:40 +0000 From: Russell King To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Ralf Baechle , Kumar Gala , Kyle McMartin , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only show RESOURCES_64BIT on relevant architectures Message-ID: <20071030200040.GA13999@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Wilcox , Ralf Baechle , Kumar Gala , Kyle McMartin , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20071028201549.GA23138@fattire.cabal.ca> <20071030024801.GA19417@linux-mips.org> <20071030083719.GJ32359@parisc-linux.org> <20071030114221.GA24392@linux-mips.org> <20071030121315.GK32359@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071030121315.GK32359@parisc-linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1275 Lines: 30 On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:13:16AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:42:21AM +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:37:19AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:03:16PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > > same HW platform that you want to run with just 32-bit phys (for > > > > performance). > > > > > > Have you measured what the performance difference is? > > > > So that's 5668, 256 bytes data and 128 bytes of bss for a total of 6052 > > bytes. Not a whole lot but I still fear some users on the most > > claustrophobic systems will mind. > > Oh, sure, I'm not saying I thought there would be no size difference; I > was just bemused at the suggestion there was a performance difference. > > Unless "won't fit in ROM any more" is considered a performance problem ;-) I think we've gone way past that that issue NetWinders long ago... in the 2.4 days iirc. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - 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/