On 07/31/2009 03:02 PM, Tim Abbott wrote:
The INIT_TASK_DATA(THREAD_SIZE) macro call aligns to THREAD_SIZE (= 2*PAGE_SIZE). So I'm not removing the 2 page alignment; I'm just moving it along with the code that needs to be aligned.
Sure.
This change: - . = ALIGN(2 * PAGE_SIZE); + . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); __init_end = .; removes the now-unnecessary (2 * PAGE_SIZE) alignment for __init_end caused by moving .data.init_task (it should have been in the first patch).
While it's technically unnecessary, it's also very much desired. Think about it. Suppose we have 9 pages of init, followed by the two-page-aligned INIT_TASK_DATA. So we get a page worth of padding added. It's better to have the two-page-alignment within the init section so as to get 10 pages of init followed by no padding. In this way the page of padding gets freed with the rest of init. Are you following me at all here? r~ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
