Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:10:57 +0000 From: thinker <thinker@branda.to> To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tuning a VERY heavily (30.0) loaded s cerver Message-ID: <20010322191057.A46607@hell.branda.to> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103211605310.9056-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva>; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:14:32PM -0300 References: <200103211840.f2LIeYA16476@earth.backplane.com> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103211605310.9056-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:14:32PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The (maybe too lightweight) structure I have in my patch
> looks like this:
>
> struct pte_chain {
> struct pte_chain * next;
> pte_t * ptep;
> };
>
> Each pte_chain hangs off a page of physical memory and the
> ptep is a pointer to a page table entry.
>
> The page struct of the page table page itself is used to
> note down which address space and offset we have. This means
> that FreeBSD's pv_pmap, pv_va and pv_ptem are in the page
> table page and NOT in each pte_chain structure...
How about portability? It maybe efficient, but it is not easy
to port to other platforms.
--
thinker@branda.to Branda Open Site (BOS)
thinker.bbs@bbs.yzu.edu.tw http://www.branda.to/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010322191057.A46607>