On Sun Sep 12 11:45:31 EDT 2010, r...@swtch.com wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:59 AM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> > wrote: > >> -#define USTKTOP (0x4000000) /* byte just beyond > >> user stack */ > >> +#define USTKTOP (0x8000000) /* byte just beyond > >> user stack */ > > > > shouldn't you add a 0 to that? what's wrong with giving a process 2gb > > of address space? fundamental 9vx limits? > > there might not be 2gb of contiguous address space to have. > this is running inside a unix process. > > another reason for the low size was so that it was easier > to keep multiple processes mapped at the same time, > to reduce context switch latency.
that makes sense. unfortunately, this means that any process that uses significant memory on plan 9 needs to be re-checked for 9vx. even 100mb is tiny. - erik
