Windows manages memory differently

By: Tzvetan Mikov (tzvetanmi.delete@this.yahoo.com), May 14, 2007 5:40 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
rwessel on 5/14/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>I pretty sure that no one, Intel and MS included, thinks PAE is a better solution than a straight 64 bit OS.
>
>And everyone understands that it has some pretty solid limitations. Linus and
>others (myself included) have discussed the kernel space issues at length (simply
>considering the size of the data structures needed to manage all those physical
>pages demonstrates the problem, and that's not the only issue), and it's hard to
>see how a 32 bit OS could actually make use of much more than about 64GB of memory.
>And even that's something of a stretch (for example, you can't use the /3GB user
>address space option in Windows with more than 16GB of RAM, IIRC).
>
>I'm sure that's part of the reason why Intel never defined (until x86-64) support
>for more than an additional four address bits in PAE (which limits you to 64GB).
>
>OTOH, in many situations, adding (some) PAE support to an OS is/was much simpler
>than doing a 64 bit port of the OS especially once you start counting all the device
>drivers and whatnot (and Linux is something of a special case where that port is actually fairly easy).
>
>Is especially simpler if you can limit the generality of the extended pages somewhat
>(or a lot), and for certain applications (databases, paging, caching, for example),
>something like PAE is pretty easy to use.
>
>And from a hardware context, PAE was a basically trivial change in the page table formats.
>
>So PAE was a quick and easy way to provide some support for more than 4GB of physical
>address space. Is a straight 64-bit OS (supporting 32 bit applications) better?
>Yes. But getting there from here is the problem. And for most users, the limitations
>of a 32-bit OS don't start to bite until you get somewhere past 2GB of RAM, so what
>the motivation for accepting any degree in inconveniece associated with a 64-bit version of the OS?
>

You are right, of course, although I don't quite understand why you brought up PAE. I was explicitly talking about less than 4 GB RAM. There has been some confusion on this because in Linux anything above 1 GB is considered HIGHMEM. This however is a design decision specific to Linux and is not necessarily an absolute requirement for a 32-bit x86 OS.

If your applications do not _individually_ require more than 2 GB address space, and if your RAM plus your PCI devices is <= 4 GB, why do you really need a 64-bit OS ?

Let's see. Fundamentally, what does the OS kernel need address space for ? Let's assume a 3G:1G user/kernel split.

a) For its own code and data structures, including page tables. 1 GB should be more than sufficient for that on a 32-bit system.

b) For memory-mapped hardware. With graphics cards with 512MB RAM and more this can be a problem on 32-bit systems. A solution is to map such hardware only in user space.

c) In a system call the OS kernel has to be able access the entire address space of the calling process. Obviously this is not a problem, as the kernel can use the user addresses directly.

d) Sometimes the kernel has to access parts of the address space of an arbitrary process. Since it needs only parts, not the entire space, it can lock & map the necessary address pages to kernel space. Windows does this persistently (the pages are mapped in advance). 32-bit Linux ends up doing it dynamically - it maps a page if it needs it and it is > 1 GB, and then unmaps it ASAP.

e) For caches. This is the only problematic part. Ideally the kernel should be able to use all available RAM as cache, but it can't fit all in the kernel address space. However since this is a specialized data structure, it should be possible to map memory in & out as needed.

Am I missing something ?

The point is, the OS doesn't need generic access to all memory at all times. So, unless your applications require lots of virtual address space, having 2-3G of RAM doesn't necessarily have to be a cause for moving to 64-bit.

regards,
Tzvetan
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Rock/Tukwila rumorsmas05/05/07 12:59 PM
  Rock/Tukwila rumorsDavid Kanter05/05/07 02:33 PM
    Rock/Tukwila rumorsDean Kent05/05/07 03:35 PM
      K8 vs Win64 timelineanonymous05/05/07 06:19 PM
        Yes, I misremembered...Dean Kent05/05/07 10:03 PM
    RockDaniel Biz√≥05/06/07 02:34 AM
      RockDean Kent05/06/07 07:11 AM
    Rock/Tukwila rumorsJoe05/06/07 11:24 AM
      Rock/Tukwila rumorsDean Kent05/06/07 11:49 AM
      Rock/Tukwila rumorsLinus Torvalds05/06/07 12:09 PM
      Rock/Tukwila rumorsanon05/07/07 01:32 AM
        Rock/Tukwila rumorsRakesh Malik05/07/07 09:36 AM
          Rock/Tukwila rumorsMichael S05/07/07 10:06 AM
          Rock/Tukwila rumorsanon05/07/07 09:48 PM
            Rock/Tukwila rumorsRakesh Malik05/08/07 06:45 AM
              Rock/Tukwila rumorsanon05/08/07 05:30 PM
                Wow. (nt)Brannon05/08/07 06:16 PM
                Rock/Tukwila rumorsrwessel05/08/07 09:48 PM
                  Rock/Tukwila rumorsJS05/08/07 10:07 PM
                    Rock/Tukwila rumorsJS05/09/07 06:44 AM
                Rock/Tukwila rumorsRakesh Malik05/09/07 05:35 AM
                  Much ado about xMichael S05/09/07 09:39 AM
                    Call it x86-64Linus Torvalds05/09/07 10:27 AM
                      (i)AMD64Michael S05/09/07 12:16 PM
                        (i)AMD64Linus Torvalds05/09/07 12:29 PM
                          (i)AMD64Groo05/09/07 04:45 PM
                          TIFNAAanonymous05/09/07 05:49 PM
                            Inspired by FYR Macedonia? (NT)Michael S05/09/07 11:21 PM
                              More likely...rwessel05/10/07 12:39 AM
                            TIFNAAGabriele Svelto05/09/07 11:57 PM
                          (i)AMD64James05/10/07 02:27 AM
                        i86Dean Kent05/09/07 12:30 PM
                        (i)AMD64Max05/09/07 01:28 PM
                          wide86? long86?hobold05/10/07 05:05 AM
                            x87 perhaps, it is one more. :) (NT)Groo05/10/07 05:50 AM
                              x86+Dean Kent05/10/07 08:44 AM
                                Does it really matter?Doug Siebert05/10/07 09:10 AM
                                  let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseMarcin Niewiadomski05/10/07 11:50 AM
                                    let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseDean Kent05/11/07 06:11 AM
                                      let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaserwessel05/11/07 02:46 PM
                                        let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseDean Kent05/11/07 06:03 PM
                                          let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseMichael S05/12/07 10:49 AM
                                            let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseDean Kent05/12/07 01:05 PM
                                              let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseMichael S05/12/07 01:25 PM
                                                let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseDean Kent05/12/07 03:39 PM
                                                  let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseJasonB05/13/07 07:43 AM
                                                    client consolidationMichael S05/13/07 08:37 AM
                                                  let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseTzvetan Mikov05/13/07 03:44 PM
                                                let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaserwessel05/14/07 02:42 PM
                                      What's your point?Doug Siebert05/11/07 02:56 PM
                                        What's your point?Linus Torvalds05/11/07 04:15 PM
                                          What's your point?Doug Siebert05/13/07 03:11 PM
                                            What's your point?Dean Kent05/13/07 07:04 PM
                                              What's your point?JasonB05/14/07 02:06 AM
                                                What's your point?Dean Kent05/14/07 07:20 AM
                                                  What's your point?JasonB05/14/07 04:35 PM
                                                  What's your point?JasonB05/14/07 07:35 PM
                                                    What's your point?Dean Kent05/14/07 08:12 PM
                                        What's your point?Dean Kent05/11/07 06:06 PM
                                        What's your point?Stephen H05/13/07 01:55 AM
                                          Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?David W. Hess05/13/07 08:37 AM
                                            PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?)Linus Torvalds05/13/07 10:20 AM
                                              PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?)Dean Kent05/13/07 10:49 AM
                                              PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?)David W. Hess05/13/07 12:37 PM
                                              > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemTzvetan Mikov05/13/07 01:44 PM
                                                > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemS. Rao05/13/07 03:00 PM
                                                  > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemTzvetan Mikov05/13/07 05:32 PM
                                                    > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemS. Rao05/14/07 12:19 AM
                                                > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemLinus Torvalds05/13/07 03:46 PM
                                                  > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemTzvetan Mikov05/13/07 05:23 PM
                                                  > 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit systemJasonB05/13/07 06:37 PM
                                                    Windows manages memory differentlyTzvetan Mikov05/13/07 08:31 PM
                                                      Windows manages memory differentlyJasonB05/14/07 01:50 AM
                                                        Windows manages memory differentlyTzvetan Mikov05/14/07 08:56 AM
                                                          Windows manages memory differentlyrwessel05/14/07 03:40 PM
                                                            Windows manages memory differentlyDavid W. Hess05/14/07 04:07 PM
                                                              Windows manages memory differentlyrwessel05/14/07 04:51 PM
                                                            Windows manages memory differentlyTzvetan Mikov05/14/07 05:40 PM
                                                              Windows manages memory differentlyrwessel05/14/07 06:09 PM
                                                      Windows manages memory differentlyHoward Chu05/14/07 11:17 AM
                                                        Windows manages memory differentlyJukka Larja05/14/07 11:30 AM
                                                        Windows manages memory differentlyTzvetan Mikov05/14/07 01:54 PM
                                                          Windows manages memory differentlyHoward Chu05/15/07 03:35 AM
                                                            Windows manages memory differentlyGroo05/15/07 07:34 AM
                                                      Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does?Matt Sayler05/15/07 06:23 AM
                                                        Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does?Wes Felter05/15/07 08:37 AM
                                                        Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does?Anonymous05/15/07 10:49 AM
                                                        Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does?anon205/15/07 07:13 PM
                                              PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?)Paul05/13/07 03:40 PM
                                                PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?)Peter Arremann05/13/07 05:38 PM
                                                  PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?)Henrik S05/14/07 03:31 AM
                                              The fragility of your argumentslacker05/13/07 03:56 PM
                                                The fragility of your argumentnick05/13/07 05:42 PM
                                                The fragility of your argumentHoward Chu05/14/07 02:52 AM
                                                  The fragility of your argumentDean Kent05/14/07 09:19 AM
                                                The fragility of your argumentanon205/14/07 08:26 AM
                                                  The fragility of your argumentTzvetan Mikov05/14/07 09:01 AM
                                                  The fragility of your argumentDean Kent05/14/07 09:16 AM
                                                    The fragility of your argumentLinus Torvalds05/14/07 11:57 AM
                                                      The fragility of your argumentJasonB05/14/07 04:48 PM
                                                        The fragility of your argumentDean Kent05/14/07 07:36 PM
                                                          The fragility of your argumentRicardo B05/16/07 02:40 AM
                                                            The fragility of your argumentDean Kent05/16/07 03:32 AM
                                                              The fragility of your argumentRicardo B05/16/07 06:41 AM
                                                                PSRicardo B05/16/07 06:50 AM
                                                                The fragility of your argumentDean Kent05/16/07 09:07 AM
                                                                  Modern web browsingS. Rao05/16/07 09:16 AM
                                                                    Aha!Dean Kent05/16/07 09:27 AM
                                                                      Aha!Dean Kent05/16/07 09:32 AM
                                                                        Aha!S. Rao05/16/07 10:34 AM
                                                                  The fragility of your argumentRicardo B05/16/07 10:00 AM
                                                      The fragility of your argumentVincent Diepeveen05/16/07 10:10 AM
                                                        The fragility of your argumentPaul05/16/07 03:01 PM
                                                          The fragility of your argumentVincent Diepeveen05/17/07 03:05 AM
                                                    The fragility of your argumentanon205/15/07 01:35 AM
                                                    Splits vs page allocations?Matt Sayler05/15/07 07:33 AM
                                          What's your point?Michael S05/13/07 08:55 AM
                                            What's your point?anonymous05/13/07 11:08 AM
                                              What's your point?Michael S05/13/07 11:31 AM
                                      let's stay with x86-64 for now, pleaseJasonB05/13/07 07:16 AM
                                x864 =) (NT)some105/15/07 03:03 AM
    Rock/Tukwila rumorsIntelUser200005/06/07 02:27 PM
  Rock/Tukwila rumorsm05/13/07 08:05 AM
  Rock/Tukwila rumorsmas05/15/07 09:40 AM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell green?