From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25673 invoked by alias); 26 May 2006 02:44:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 25378 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2006 02:44:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 May 2006 02:43:09 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FjSI3-0004LY-2F; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:43:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 21:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: Nick Clifton , binutils@sources.redhat.com, discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Change x86-64 maximum page size to 2MB Message-ID: <20060526024303.GA16636@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "H. J. Lu" , Nick Clifton , binutils@sources.redhat.com, discuss@x86-64.org References: <20060516232326.GA18996@lucon.org> <446D8BE1.3030504@redhat.com> <20060525231019.GA16017@lucon.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060525231019.GA16017@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:10:19PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:12:01AM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote: > > Hi H. J. > > > > >The current x86-64 maximum page size is 1MB. With the future > > >development, 2MB is better for performance. Using 2MB won't break > > >anything, except for up to 2MB gap in virtual address space per file, > > >instead of 1MB. x86-64 has 48 bits in virtual address space. It > > >shouldn't be an issue for most applications. I have a patch: > > > > > >http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-05/msg00644.html > > > > > >which can be used to implement "-z max-page-size=xxxx" so that people > > >can control maximum page size at the link time if they prefer different > > >maximum page size. > > > > This seems to be perfectly reasonable. > > I tested this patch on gcc, glibc, 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. I will check > it in shortly. If you do this without setting ELF_MINPAGESIZE, won't BFD start to reject some files? It doesn't happen obviously, they'll just get corrupted on objcopy; see the one use of ->minpagesize. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery