>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.