It's not too interesting Linus' own opinion about hardwares. My question was different. In PPC, BAT is only a *parallel* eristic cpu uses trying to get an hit without waiting for hases full resolution. Now, I'm wondering how difficult would be building an intel's 2-level compatibility layer for those drivers which use such a syscalls. I noted 2.0 kernel has such a layer, while 2.4 seems not to.
bye On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:56:56 -0500 (EST) "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No way. The ppc paging system according to Linus: > > "In particular, while I'm not a big fan of the PPC hash tables > (understatement of the year), I _do_ like the BAT mapping that PPC has." > > "The others are just stupid aberrations (ie the ppc hash-tables), > and can portably be considered nothing but in-memory TLB's." > > "The sane PPC setups actually have a regular soft-filled TLB, and last I > saw that actually performed _better_ than the stupid architected hash- > chains. And for the broken OS's (ie AIX) that wants the hash-chains, you > can always make the soft-fill TLB do the stupid thing.." > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Mij -o- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -o- http://mij.oltrelinux.com
