I agree with Tanenbaum that if an active program's working set
>> does not fit in core and must be swapped, there is a problem.
shap> if you believe that we will remain crippled by 32-bit address limits
shap> forever, then Andy is right. But if you believe that 64-bit virtual
shap> addresses are an inevitable transition (as I do), then I think Andy's
shap> assertion is questionable.
Hi! Thought:
mmap( 1Tb file ) into 64bit address space
use part X of the file
tell OS that part X of file is no longer needed
= application is simple (64bit of address)
+ still responsible for it's working set size
cheers
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
