On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote: >> It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB >> but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers. >> >> This seems like a microscopically small market segment. I can't see any >> sense in such an effort. > > I remember the RHEL hugemem patch being a big deal for lots of their > customers, so a process could address the full 4GB instead of only 3GB > on a 32-bit machine. If I recall correctly, upstream didn't want it > (get a 64-bit machine!) but lots of paying customers clamored for it.
Fair enough, but that's a very different case. As Matt points out, the proposal here requires a 64 bit machine; the only difference is in the user process space limit when that process is running in 32 bit mode. paul