The fragility of your argument

By: anon2 (example.delete@this.example.com), May 15, 2007 1:35 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 5/14/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>anon2 (example@example.net) on 5/14/07 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>No it is NOT. I have no idea where you got this impression. The requirements are (as Linus already explained):
>>
>>Virtual address space >= user address space + kernel address space
>>Kernel address space >= physical memory size + memory-mapped I/O size + kernel virtual mappings
>
>It seems odd to me that virtually *every* address must be mapped, whether actually used or not.

I don't understand what you are saying is odd here. The kernel uses all of physical memory, at all times. For cacheing if it can't find a better use. Doing less would be pointlessly throwing performance away.

There are kinds of cacheing where the kernel rarely or never needs to directly access the memory, which allows it to use memory not permanently mapped into the kernel's address space, but there's extra overhead if it does have to access it directly, and such memory can't be used for all purposes. This is Linux's HIGHMEM kludge.

>>Assuming you want to allow a user virtual address space
>>on the order of physical memory size, virtual memory size should be at least 2x physical memory.
>
>Even if *none* of your apps uses that much memory?

You need room in the total virtual address space for the kernel's needs (all of physical memory, if the kernel is doing its job right), plus the maximum potential user address space. Some processors have additional virtual address bits in the form of "address space IDs" which allow the 2^32 limit to be stretched, but the x86-32 whose PAE we are talking about does not.

Of each user address space, some fraction is mapped. Some fraction of the mapped space is backed by physical (resident) memory pages. Physical memory needs to be large enough to hold the latter. Virtual memory needs to be large enough to hold the former, which is always larger.

>Shouldn't an address space
>only be as large as it needs to be?

The basic size of an address space is fixed by the processor architecture. On x86-32, it is 2^32 bytes. (This may be further limited by the processor silicon, but no existing x86-32 imposes such a limit.)

Software may decide what fraction of that address space can be accessed, but its basic size is carved in silicon; it cannot be changed dynamically.

> Shouldn't virtual address pages be allocated only when actually needed?

They mostly are. One exception is the user/kernel split, which has to be in the same place in every process, so moving it dynamically is thoroughly impractical.

Instead, the virtual address space is statically divided into a "user region" which is different for every process and a "kernel region" which is shared.

>>The resident set size has NOTHING do do with it. The user (virtual) address space
>>contains all mapped addresses, both resident and non-resident. You need space for all of that.
>
>You need space for what you use, it seems to me. If you are allocating pages for
>unused memory, that seems to be a waste of effort to me.

I don't understand what "space" you are talking about. There are two kinds of space: virtual and physical. You need virtual address space for all virtual (potentially usable) addresses. You need physical memory for the subset of virtual addresses that you actually use.

When you memory-map a resource, you consume virtual address space equal to the size of that resource, but (modulo kernel bookkeeping) no physical memory. When you access that resource, you additionally need physical memory to hold the portion of the resource that you access.
< 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?