Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:23:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Kip Macy <kmacy@netapp.com> To: Shawn <drevil@warpcore.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Assembly Syscall Question Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308021420570.2364-100000@cranford-fe.eng.netapp.com> In-Reply-To: <1059859111.1532.0.camel@CPE-65-26-140-154.kc.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Maybe, but they also support a lot of MMU-less architectures, so it may > have made things simpler for them to not depend on MMU. I wonder if NUMA > had any bearing on that as well... No. The initial design of their VM greatly preceded NUMA and uCLinux. It actually makes the system less portable in that it can require interspersing of machine dependent code in the machine independent parts when the machines page table layout differs from the default. The introduction to the UVM thesis has some good points in this regard. -Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10308021420570.2364-100000>