By: Matt Sayler (sayler.delete@this.thewalrus.org), May 15, 2007 6:33 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.
>
>>
>>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? Shouldn't an address space
>only be as large as it needs to be? Shouldn't virtual address pages be allocated only when actually needed?
>
>>
>>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'm not sure if part of the confusion comes from the difference between a hard split between Kernel/User processes (2GB/2GB on Windows and 1GB/3GB on Linux by default) and page allocation.
Even Windows (which does not enforce all Kernel address space to map to physical memory) has a fixed split as far as I can tell.
If you place the fixed split at too low a memory range (say 100MB in your example) no process could ever use any more than 100MB.
I'm not sure if I'm beating around the bush or stating the obvious here..
---------------------------
>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.
>
>>
>>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? Shouldn't an address space
>only be as large as it needs to be? Shouldn't virtual address pages be allocated only when actually needed?
>
>>
>>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'm not sure if part of the confusion comes from the difference between a hard split between Kernel/User processes (2GB/2GB on Windows and 1GB/3GB on Linux by default) and page allocation.
Even Windows (which does not enforce all Kernel address space to map to physical memory) has a fixed split as far as I can tell.
If you place the fixed split at too low a memory range (say 100MB in your example) no process could ever use any more than 100MB.
I'm not sure if I'm beating around the bush or stating the obvious here..
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Rock/Tukwila rumors | mas | 2007/05/05 11:59 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | David Kanter | 2007/05/05 01:33 PM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Dean Kent | 2007/05/05 02:35 PM |
K8 vs Win64 timeline | anonymous | 2007/05/05 05:19 PM |
Yes, I misremembered... | Dean Kent | 2007/05/05 09:03 PM |
Rock | Daniel Bizó | 2007/05/06 01:34 AM |
Rock | Dean Kent | 2007/05/06 06:11 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Joe | 2007/05/06 10:24 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Dean Kent | 2007/05/06 10:49 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/06 11:09 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | anon | 2007/05/07 12:32 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Rakesh Malik | 2007/05/07 08:36 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Michael S | 2007/05/07 09:06 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | anon | 2007/05/07 08:48 PM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Rakesh Malik | 2007/05/08 05:45 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | anon | 2007/05/08 04:30 PM |
Wow. (nt) | Brannon | 2007/05/08 05:16 PM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | rwessel | 2007/05/08 08:48 PM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | JS | 2007/05/08 09:07 PM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | JS | 2007/05/09 05:44 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | Rakesh Malik | 2007/05/09 04:35 AM |
Much ado about x | Michael S | 2007/05/09 08:39 AM |
Call it x86-64 | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/09 09:27 AM |
(i)AMD64 | Michael S | 2007/05/09 11:16 AM |
(i)AMD64 | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/09 11:29 AM |
(i)AMD64 | Groo | 2007/05/09 03:45 PM |
TIFNAA | anonymous | 2007/05/09 04:49 PM |
Inspired by FYR Macedonia? (NT) | Michael S | 2007/05/09 10:21 PM |
More likely... | rwessel | 2007/05/09 11:39 PM |
TIFNAA | Gabriele Svelto | 2007/05/09 10:57 PM |
(i)AMD64 | James | 2007/05/10 01:27 AM |
i86 | Dean Kent | 2007/05/09 11:30 AM |
(i)AMD64 | Max | 2007/05/09 12:28 PM |
wide86? long86? | hobold | 2007/05/10 04:05 AM |
x87 perhaps, it is one more. :) (NT) | Groo | 2007/05/10 04:50 AM |
x86+ | Dean Kent | 2007/05/10 07:44 AM |
Does it really matter? | Doug Siebert | 2007/05/10 08:10 AM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Marcin Niewiadomski | 2007/05/10 10:50 AM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Dean Kent | 2007/05/11 05:11 AM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | rwessel | 2007/05/11 01:46 PM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Dean Kent | 2007/05/11 05:03 PM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Michael S | 2007/05/12 09:49 AM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Dean Kent | 2007/05/12 12:05 PM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Michael S | 2007/05/12 12:25 PM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Dean Kent | 2007/05/12 02:39 PM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | JasonB | 2007/05/13 06:43 AM |
client consolidation | Michael S | 2007/05/13 07:37 AM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/13 02:44 PM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | rwessel | 2007/05/14 01:42 PM |
What's your point? | Doug Siebert | 2007/05/11 01:56 PM |
What's your point? | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/11 03:15 PM |
What's your point? | Doug Siebert | 2007/05/13 02:11 PM |
What's your point? | Dean Kent | 2007/05/13 06:04 PM |
What's your point? | JasonB | 2007/05/14 01:06 AM |
What's your point? | Dean Kent | 2007/05/14 06:20 AM |
What's your point? | JasonB | 2007/05/14 03:35 PM |
What's your point? | JasonB | 2007/05/14 06:35 PM |
What's your point? | Dean Kent | 2007/05/14 07:12 PM |
What's your point? | Dean Kent | 2007/05/11 05:06 PM |
What's your point? | Stephen H | 2007/05/13 12:55 AM |
Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE? | David W. Hess | 2007/05/13 07:37 AM |
PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?) | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/13 09:20 AM |
PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?) | Dean Kent | 2007/05/13 09:49 AM |
PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?) | David W. Hess | 2007/05/13 11:37 AM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/13 12:44 PM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | S. Rao | 2007/05/13 02:00 PM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/13 04:32 PM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | S. Rao | 2007/05/13 11:19 PM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/13 02:46 PM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/13 04:23 PM |
> 1 GB RAM on a 32-bit system | JasonB | 2007/05/13 05:37 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/13 07:31 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | JasonB | 2007/05/14 12:50 AM |
Windows manages memory differently | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/14 07:56 AM |
Windows manages memory differently | rwessel | 2007/05/14 02:40 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | David W. Hess | 2007/05/14 03:07 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | rwessel | 2007/05/14 03:51 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/14 04:40 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | rwessel | 2007/05/14 05:09 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | Howard Chu | 2007/05/14 10:17 AM |
Windows manages memory differently | Jukka Larja | 2007/05/14 10:30 AM |
Windows manages memory differently | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/14 12:54 PM |
Windows manages memory differently | Howard Chu | 2007/05/15 02:35 AM |
Windows manages memory differently | Groo | 2007/05/15 06:34 AM |
Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does? | Matt Sayler | 2007/05/15 05:23 AM |
Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does? | Wes Felter | 2007/05/15 07:37 AM |
Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does? | Anonymous | 2007/05/15 09:49 AM |
Anyone know what OS X (10.4, Intel, desktop) does? | anon2 | 2007/05/15 06:13 PM |
PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?) | Paul | 2007/05/13 02:40 PM |
PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?) | Peter Arremann | 2007/05/13 04:38 PM |
PAE sucks (Why didn't MS take advantage of PAE?) | Henrik S | 2007/05/14 02:31 AM |
The fragility of your argument | slacker | 2007/05/13 02:56 PM |
The fragility of your argument | nick | 2007/05/13 04:42 PM |
The fragility of your argument | Howard Chu | 2007/05/14 01:52 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Dean Kent | 2007/05/14 08:19 AM |
The fragility of your argument | anon2 | 2007/05/14 07:26 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Tzvetan Mikov | 2007/05/14 08:01 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Dean Kent | 2007/05/14 08:16 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Linus Torvalds | 2007/05/14 10:57 AM |
The fragility of your argument | JasonB | 2007/05/14 03:48 PM |
The fragility of your argument | Dean Kent | 2007/05/14 06:36 PM |
The fragility of your argument | Ricardo B | 2007/05/16 01:40 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Dean Kent | 2007/05/16 02:32 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Ricardo B | 2007/05/16 05:41 AM |
PS | Ricardo B | 2007/05/16 05:50 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Dean Kent | 2007/05/16 08:07 AM |
Modern web browsing | S. Rao | 2007/05/16 08:16 AM |
Aha! | Dean Kent | 2007/05/16 08:27 AM |
Aha! | Dean Kent | 2007/05/16 08:32 AM |
Aha! | S. Rao | 2007/05/16 09:34 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Ricardo B | 2007/05/16 09:00 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Vincent Diepeveen | 2007/05/16 09:10 AM |
The fragility of your argument | Paul | 2007/05/16 02:01 PM |
The fragility of your argument | Vincent Diepeveen | 2007/05/17 02:05 AM |
The fragility of your argument | anon2 | 2007/05/15 12:35 AM |
Splits vs page allocations? | Matt Sayler | 2007/05/15 06:33 AM |
What's your point? | Michael S | 2007/05/13 07:55 AM |
What's your point? | anonymous | 2007/05/13 10:08 AM |
What's your point? | Michael S | 2007/05/13 10:31 AM |
let's stay with x86-64 for now, please | JasonB | 2007/05/13 06:16 AM |
x864 =) (NT) | some1 | 2007/05/15 02:03 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | IntelUser2000 | 2007/05/06 01:27 PM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | m | 2007/05/13 07:05 AM |
Rock/Tukwila rumors | mas | 2007/05/15 08:40 AM |