Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)
From: Timothy Miller (miller_at_techsource.com)
Date: 09/22/04
- Previous message: Stas Sergeev: "Re: ESP corruption bug - what CPUs are affected?"
- Maybe in reply to: jmerkey_at_comcast.net: "Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)"
- Next in thread: Roland Dreier: "Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)"
- Reply: Roland Dreier: "Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:52:43 -0400 To: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
I feel like I've missed something in this discussion.
First of all I really don't understand the cause of the lost 128K in the
first place, but it seems that by increasing the address space reserved
for the kernel in user space by some amount fixes this problem.
My question is: Why can't we just shrink the kernel address space by
that same amount, allowing the kernel address space plus the extra to
fit into 1GB?
-
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/
- Previous message: Stas Sergeev: "Re: ESP corruption bug - what CPUs are affected?"
- Maybe in reply to: jmerkey_at_comcast.net: "Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)"
- Next in thread: Roland Dreier: "Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)"
- Reply: Roland Dreier: "Re: 1GB/2GB/3GB User Space Splitting Patch 2.6.8.1 (PSEUDO SPAM)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
