| |||||||||||||
Single kernel image for UP & SMPSingle kernel image for UP & SMPPosted Dec 22, 2005 15:41 UTC (Thu) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)Parent article: SMP alternatives
Could this patch cause removing CONFIG_SMP in future? With kernel image identical for SMP and UP machines and runtime patching?
(Log in to post comments)
Single kernel image for UP & SMP Posted Dec 22, 2005 23:30 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] Well, as some others have remarked for this to work you have to remember which (spin)locks are taken, even on a UP processor thus loosing some performance in UP.
I think that even a minimal loss would be a hard sell to kernel developpers considering how little this UP<->SMP feature is going to be used..
Single kernel image for UP & SMP Posted Dec 25, 2005 19:59 UTC (Sun) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link] There's no reason why you would have to do that (I won't repeat my last post). The speed differences would be down to the processor having to deal with the few noop's, eating up slightly more L1/L2 cache, and keeping in memory (and the kernel image file itself) - for those who worry about that - code for both scenario's.
Single kernel image for UP & SMP Posted Jun 9, 2006 23:42 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] I can't imagine that. Think of embedded applications. When you only have 2MB of flash and a couple of megabytes of RAM, you really start to care about the few kilobytes such a feature costs of both memory footprints.
Single kernel image for UP & SMP Posted Jun 11, 2006 16:14 UTC (Sun) by tyhik (guest, #14747) [Link] RAM and flash ships get larger and larger all the time. For smaller design companies it may already be cheaper to get 4mb than 2mb flash chip.
But of course the code size matters. Smaller code implies better cache usage.
|
|||||||||||||