Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:28:49 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel threads Message-ID: <98Nov26.072820est.40325@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:52:18 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote: [Redesign the entire KVM subsystem] > I just don't know how feasible it all is... it would mean a huge amount of > rewriting. And I don't suppose you currently have the time to examine it in detail :-). > The disadvantage of this > scheme is that it limits main memory to around 2GB on a 32 bit machine. Whilst I don't believe this is a serious problem at present, I can see that it might be in a couple of years. I presume that the problem is that something is signed - although I'm not sure what in particular. Is there a real reason for that object to be signed? If it's just to allow a `-1 on error', could it be unsigned with 0xFFFFFFFF reserved? Alternatively, could it have a granularity larger than 1 byte? > The benefits cascade very quickly.... if one is willing to give up > 2GB > memory configurations on 32 bit cpus. In which case it would seem worthwhile doing some more detailed examination. In particular, how much effort would be involved and whether the 2GB boundary can be avoided. Now 3.0 is nearly stable, we need a new bleeding edge for -current. This sounds like a good start for FreeBSD 4.x :-). Peter -- Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Alcatel Australia Limited 41 Mandible St Phone: +61 2 9690 5019 ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 Fax: +61 2 9690 5247 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98Nov26.072820est.40325>