Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Julian Elischer
yeah I remembered how it all worked after I wrote that.. You'd think they'd eventually get the idea of letting the kernel have it's own 'cr3' and some TLBs eh? listenning intel? On 8 Jul 1999, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Elischer) writes: we already use the

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Patryk Zadarnowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Julian Elischer) writes: we already use the gs register for SMP now.. what about the fs register? I vaguely remember that the different segments could be used to achieve this (%fs points to user space or something) You can't extend the address space that way,

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Ville-Pertti Keinonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patryk Zadarnowski) writes: You can't extend the address space that way, segments are all parts of the single 4GB address space described by the page mapping. True, but you can reserve a part of the 4GB address space (say 128MB of it) for partitioning into tiny (say

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Matthew Dillon
:yeah I remembered how it all worked after I wrote that.. :You'd think they'd eventually get the idea of letting the kernel have it's :own 'cr3' and some TLBs eh? : :listenning intel? This is intel we are talking about. Their mmu/cache technology is always a few years behind the times.

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Ville-Pertti Keinonen
jul...@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) writes: we already use the gs register for SMP now.. what about the fs register? I vaguely remember that the different segments could be used to achieve this (%fs points to user space or something) You can't extend the address space that way,

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Julian Elischer
yeah I remembered how it all worked after I wrote that.. You'd think they'd eventually get the idea of letting the kernel have it's own 'cr3' and some TLBs eh? listenning intel? On 8 Jul 1999, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: jul...@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) writes: we already use the

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Patryk Zadarnowski
jul...@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) writes: we already use the gs register for SMP now.. what about the fs register? I vaguely remember that the different segments could be used to achieve this (%fs points to user space or something) You can't extend the address space that way,

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Ville-Pertti Keinonen
patr...@mycenae.ilion.eu.org (Patryk Zadarnowski) writes: You can't extend the address space that way, segments are all parts of the single 4GB address space described by the page mapping. True, but you can reserve a part of the 4GB address space (say 128MB of it) for partitioning into

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-08 Thread Matthew Dillon
:yeah I remembered how it all worked after I wrote that.. :You'd think they'd eventually get the idea of letting the kernel have it's :own 'cr3' and some TLBs eh? : :listenning intel? This is intel we are talking about. Their mmu/cache technology is always a few years behind the times.

Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-07 Thread Greg Lehey
On Thursday, 8 July 1999 at 9:26:09 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: David Greenman wrote: Yes, I do - at least with the 512MB figure. That would be half of the 1GB KVA space and large systems really need that space for things like network buffers and other map regions. Matthew Dillon

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-07 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Why not put the kernel in a different address space? IIRC there's no :absolute requirement for the kernel and userland to be in the same :address space, and that way we would have 4 GB for each. : :Greg No, the syscall overhead is way too high if we have to mess with MMU context. This

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-07 Thread Julian Elischer
we already use the gs register for SMP now.. what about the fs register? I vaguely remember that the different segments could be used to achieve this (%fs points to user space or something) julian On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: :Why not put the kernel in a different address

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-07 Thread Patryk Zadarnowski
Why not put the kernel in a different address space? IIRC there's no absolute requirement for the kernel and userland to be in the same address space, and that way we would have 4 GB for each. Wouldn't that make system calls that need to share data between kernel and user spaces hopelessly

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-07 Thread Patryk Zadarnowski
we already use the gs register for SMP now.. what about the fs register? I vaguely remember that the different segments could be used to achieve this (%fs points to user space or something) ... as I've suggested a few days ago, and was told to shut up with a (rather irrelevant) reference

Re: Bursting at the seams (was: Heh heh, humorous lockup)

1999-07-07 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Patryk Zadarnowski wrote: Why not put the kernel in a different address space? IIRC there's no absolute requirement for the kernel and userland to be in the same address space, and that way we would have 4 GB for each. Wouldn't that make system calls that need to