Date: 17 Mar 2001 23:36:36 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: clash@tasam.com, bright@wintelcom.net, ianc@ednet.co.uk, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process Message-ID: <xzpsnkcxbt7.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Jordan Hubbard's message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:25:28 -0800" References: <Pine.LNX.4.31L2.0103120005460.9179-100000@pachabel.ednet.co.uk> <20010311204130.N18351@fw.wintelcom.net> <003701c0aaaf$a4566ce0$dc02010a@fireduck.com> <20010312012528D.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> writes: > Well, that single 4GB of address space is divided up into kernel data > structures, which are in the address space of the process but subject > to various levels of MMU-provided memory protection, and the process' > own "user data." I believe the break is currently set in the middle > at 2GB, and various attempts to adjust it more aggressively (in user > data's favor) have been interesting but ultimately also proved to > break things like BSD/OS binaries, which have their own assumptions > about the setting of the break. Ahem. The other way around, actually (we increased KVM space from 256 MB to 1 GB - not 2 GB as you claim). And the problem with legacy BSDI binaries (newer ones don't have this problem) was fixed a long time ago, in 3.0 (before 3.0-RELEASE). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpsnkcxbt7.fsf>