Andi Kleen wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Just to give some perspective of this:
> 
> On my laptop here
> 
>  BIOS-e820: 000000000009dc00 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
>  BIOS-e820: 00000000000d2000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
> 
> This means it reserves only ~193KB in the 640k-1MB area
> 
> With this patch it will reserve 384KB instead. This means 191KB
> are lost. While that doesn't sound too much it worth as much as
> 382 patches that reduce kernel code size by 512bytes or
> worth 3820 patches that reduce kernel code by 100 bytes in terms
> of memory consumption.
> 
> Now such kernel code size patches are always popular, but why undo that
> work by throwing away perfectly good memory elsewhere?
> 
> Or also the laptop kernel does
> 
> Freeing unused kernel memory: 340k freed
> 
> This means the 193KB now lost are worth 56% of the complete
> memory that is freed by __initdata/__init. Just maintaining
> these annotations is a lot of work, but why do all that if we
> then throw away than half as much memory as they save so easily?
> 

It doesn't waste any memory at all.

It arguably wastes some *address space*, but that's an entirely 
different thing.

Unless you have chipset-specific drivers to enable memory in the 
640-1024K memory area, there is nothing there.

	-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/