Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: "LaBird" <b_cheung_2005@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:44:57 +0800
Hi Phil,
<phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Come the day we actually need more than 48-bit addresses, there will also
be a lot of structural changes, primarily affecting the kernel and how it
handles things like virtual memory and simultaneous views of kernel space
and user space (things are a whole lot easier if the kernel can at least
have the whole kernel space and one whole VM in its view at once). Given
I agree with you. Perhaps with a large address space, the process space
should be a global one for all processes in execution, rather than each
process having its own process space.
On the other hand, in the hardware aspect, there may be a need for some
alternative large secondary storage which is much faster than hard disks.
Otherwise a large VM may not be really useful as executing applications with
large VM/RAM demand will not be practical.
Best Regards,
LaBird (Benny).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: Josef Moellers
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- References:
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: LaBird
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: LaBird
- Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Prev by Date: Re: sharing memory between kernel and user space
- Next by Date: Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Previous by thread: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Next by thread: Re: Question on mmap() in 64-bit OS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|