Hi Sergio,
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Sergio Andrés Gómez del Real
sergio.g.delr...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got some questions regarding this linear to physical address
mapping on x86 architecture; I'm not sure I've grassped the whole
thing.
Before asking, I'd like to be sure I
It is an arbitrary question that popped in my mind. However, I came to know
that the constraints I stated in the previous mail is only restricted to
x86 only.Now besides my first questions , I have one more question, Why x86
only?
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Sergio Andrés Gómez del Real
On Tue, 14 May 2013 11:15:35 +0530, Paul Davies C said:
It is an arbitrary question that popped in my mind. However, I came to know
that the constraints I stated in the previous mail is only restricted to
x86 only.Now besides my first questions , I have one more question, Why x86
only?
It's
Well, I came up with the same question: Why 896MB (almost all the linear space)
is permanently mapped linearly to physical memory? The alternative would be to
map just the amount that accounts to the kernel image and the uninitialized
data, and then dinamically map the rest. I'd guess that the
Is this is a question that popped up to your mind arbitrarily or do you
have a specific system at hand which triggered you to ponder over the
design of the kernel ? I felt the answer to this question is not straight
forward but is multi faceted and to be discussed in a specific context.
On Sat,
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:11:22 -0500, Sergio Andr said:
2. When user applications allocates memory, the kernel must allocate
virtual memory and physical memory, right?
Wrong. If userspace allocates (say) 15M of memory, the kernel has every right
to overcommit and not actually allocate either
Sure, I forgot what you said; precisely the mechanism allows to use
lots of linear space without necessarily allocating physical memory
(demand paging and the like).
What about the rest of what I said? Is it correct or is there
something wrong about it?
Thanks.
On 5/13/13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu