Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:18:20 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: toor@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Cc: alc@cs.rice.edu, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Size of the Virtual Memory Page Message-ID: <199605172118.OAA20724@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605160522.AAA00186@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at May 16, 96 00:22:53 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > P.S. Theoretically, you could do the same thing on the x86. John (Dyson), > > have you ever thought of trying this just for grins? Some stuff would likely > > break, but... :-) > > > I have thought about it (in passing.) Actually, it could decrease overhead in > some cases, at the expense of memory. 8/16K pages *might* be interesting. The > VM and vfs_bio system (after my changes) will have problems with bigger than > 16K pages. I am sure that they could be worked around. The limitation > has to do with the bit-mask that I use for valid and dirtyness being in > 512 byte increments. We have 32bits/word, so that means that 16K is kind > of the max (if you ignore long-longs.) Long-longs would bring it up to > 32K. I would guess that 64K might be cool also, but require a few changes. If you do this, *PLEASE* bracket the code with compile-time disablers so I don't have to support 16k pages on the PPC. Thanks. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605172118.OAA20724>