This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]


Hello Alan,

On 19/12/14 09:16, Alan Modra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:41:19PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:26:03AM +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
> >On 17/12/2014 12:34 pm, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >It seems to me that most powerpc hardware these days is server based,  and very
> > >little remains at the desktop class.
> >
> >What about embedded devices with as Freescale's QorIQ T2080 and T4240 ?
> >
> > >And in the server environment, IBM has
> > >been recommending a 64k page size.
> >
> >Would this change effect RTEMS and it devices ?
>Yes, it would.  However, the effect isn't huge one way or another.
>Richard quoting IBM's recommendation of a 64k page size really hasn't
>anything to do with COMMONPAGESIZE, or at least not as much as you
>might think..  You can quite happily run a binary linked with
>COMMONPAGESIZE set to 4k on a system using 64k pages.  COMMONPAGESIZE
>or -z common-page-size is really about where the linker starts the
>data segment, following on from the text segment.  It boils down to
>a trade-off between memory pages and disk pages, and the net result of
>increasing COMMONPAGESIZE to 64k for a system running with 4k pages
>is that you'll tend to have bigger on-disk binaries but won't use any
>more memory than with the "proper" 4k COMMONPAGESIZE.  On the other
>hand if you really are running with 64k pages, there will be binaries
>where you could save a 64k page of memory if you'd specified the
>proper COMMONPAGESIZE at link time.
>Overall, I think the increased COMMONPAGESIZE is beneficial, so I'm
>happy with the patch.
One other thing I'd forgotten about is that COMMONPAGESIZE is used to
decide where the relro segment ends (which after reading some bug
reports, I guess is the driving force behind this patch).  This
particular usage*can*  increase memory footprint so my "won't use more
memory" remark above is incorrect.

You could argue that using COMMONPAGESIZE for this purpose is a bug,
and that MAXPAGESIZE should determine the relro segment end instead..

is this change relevant if I use a custom linker command file that is supposed to place all sections into a defined memory region?

Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  :
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]