| To: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re : module allocation |
| From: | moreau francis <francis_moreau2000@yahoo.fr> |
| Date: | Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:41:01 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.fr; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jtGm1STmeudxbeHrdFce8+l3T/esLw8IXTF/N/yfHGJ7K4rpPJ5gqWUkmkIcKp1OM/1DodkoFUzbovcBezywirmRSJcTNnFQeA3NB8Rw3YOueeb6LVuFPzOQ/89zTQ2pgJPZJ2UM3Wlb3/s4nhipEgWKeeh8ZAXGLPIxE2YoXJA= ; |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| Reply-to: | moreau francis <francis_moreau2000@yahoo.fr> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:04:17PM +0000, moreau francis wrote:
> Maybe a silly question...why do we use mapped memory (allocated by
> vmalloc) for inserting a module into the kernel ?
>
Ok, to sum up things:
Pros:
- allocation granularity is a page size where as GFP allocations is a power
of two...
- better chance for the module to get loaded into fragmented memory.
Cons:
- it consumes TLB entries, (usually one ?)
- it needs to generate the module with "-mlong-calls" switch which generates
larger and less efficient code.
- there will be a refill exception overhead each time the module code will be
executed and it's not mapped through TLB.
maybe that would make sense to do some benchmarks ?
Thanks
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: problem with mips-linux gprof, Daniel Jacobowitz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | The Linux binutils 2.17.50.0.1 is released, H. J. Lu |
| Previous by Thread: | module allocation, moreau francis |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Re : module allocation, Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |