On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> Basically, it was just a quick swapping mechanism. In the
> context of IA-32, you could maybe have the first gigabyte of
> space as "fixed", and the remaining three gigabytes as multiple
> ("named") address spaces. Each named-address space could be
At 10:57 PM -0700 8/3/01, Terry Lambert wrote:
>Rik van Riel wrote:
>> > This is a trivial implementation. I'm not very impressed.
>>
>> > Personally, I'm not interested in a huge user space,
>>
>> Maybe not you, but I bet the database and scientific
>> computing people will be interested in
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:38:23AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > This is a trivial implementation. I'm not very impressed.
>
> > Personally, I'm not interested in a huge user space,
>
> Maybe not you, but I bet the database and scientific
> computi
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> You still haven't told me what Linux does for 2x4G processes
> and a 1G kernel with "only" 8G of physical RAM. I rather
> suspect that as soon as your usage exceeds real memory, it
> all goes to hell very quickly, since your L1 and L2 caches
> are effec
Rik van Riel wrote:
> > This is a trivial implementation. I'm not very impressed.
>
> > Personally, I'm not interested in a huge user space,
>
> Maybe not you, but I bet the database and scientific
> computing people will be interested in having 64 GB
> memory support in this simple way.
You m
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
"Replying above an email because the curser is there is like
shitting in your pants because your ass is there when you
need to go to the toilet."
> BUT, don't the motherboards also have to support this? And isn't
> it only supported through some
Charles Randall wrote:
>
> From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >I have yet to see one person using it for anything. So far,
> >it is nothing more than marketing fodder: I haven't seen one
> >motherboard capable of more than 4G worth of SIMMs.
>
> The Dell PowerEdge 6450 supports 8
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> This basically means that the memory is useless as a DMA target
> or source for disk controllers or gigabit ethernet cards, and is
> pretty useless for swap, if you ever have to copy from one section
> to another (e.g. for IPC, SYSV shared memory, mmap'ed files, VM,
> or
From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>I have yet to see one person using it for anything. So far,
>it is nothing more than marketing fodder: I haven't seen one
>motherboard capable of more than 4G worth of SIMMs.
The Dell PowerEdge 6450 supports 8 GB of RAM.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> No
> The space is linear in physical space and if you have PCI/64
> capable devices they can access it all too.
>
> (In fact 64 bit addresses have been supported even in 32 bit wide PCI
> since day 1).
It's been my experience that the TIGON cards take a 32 bit
DMA tar
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> Also, the PIII CAN'T natively support more than 4GB of ram. If a
> particular PIII motherboard supports this, then it's using some
> kind of wierd chipset that allows this to happen. 4GB is the
> limit with a 32 bit chip I believe; and the PIII is
Rik van Riel wrote:
> > BUT, don't the motherboards also have to support this? And isn't
> > it only supported through some wierd segmentation thing?
>
> Yes, the mainboard needs to support the memory.
>
> No, there is no weird segmentation thing, at least
> not visible from software.
Last time
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, and 64 bit PCI cards can in fact
> DMA at offsets above 4G, in the physical address space...
They can. And for 32 bit PCI cards you simply use
bounce buffers in the same way you handle ISA bounce
buffers.
It's ugly, but if you
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > > Only the FreeBSD memory management subsystem doesn't
> > > > support it (yet?).
> > >
> > > It's not a question of "supporting it", it's a question of
> > > whether or not it's a useful idea at all.
> >
> > > I have yet to see one person usin
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Original poster said he was working on it for Linux, which
> means it's not done, which means "not Linux".
It's been running for a while now, integrated
in the 2.4 kernel.
The way Linux manages to avoid the horrors you
describe is by simply not letting
> > No
> > The space is linear in physical space and if you have PCI/64
> > capable devices they can access it all too.
> >
> > (In fact 64 bit addresses have been supported even in 32 bit wide PCI
> > since day 1).
>
> OK, then what was that whole paging thing everyone was talking about, I
> t
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > Only if you want to use it all within one process.
> > >
> > > No. It still bites you if you want to do IPC, etc., since you
> > > can not guarantee the structures used for this are all within
> > > the non-segmented region of
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, mark tinguely wrote:
> The addressing use 64 bits for a memory pointer and the additional
> page indirection add to the overhead. The stickler is the MMU is
> still 32 bits. This means the PAE must segment the 64GB space into
> 4GB segments or 4 1GB segments. The OS must manag
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Charles Randall wrote:
> From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >I have yet to see one person using it for anything. So far,
> >it is nothing more than marketing fodder: I haven't seen one
> >motherboard capable of more than 4G worth of SIMMs.
>
> The Dell PowerEdge
On 2 Aug 2001, Kenneth Wayne Culver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Also, the PIII CAN'T natively support more than 4GB of ram. If a
> particular PIII motherboard supports this, then it's using some kind of
> wierd chipset that allows this to happen. 4GB is the limit with a 32 bit
> chip I beli
Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Only if you want to use it all within one process.
> >
> > No. It still bites you if you want to do IPC, etc., since you
> > can not guarantee the structures used for this are all within
> > the non-segmented region of memory.
>
> Wrong. Your process can have pages from
No
The space is linear in physical space and if you have PCI/64
capable devices they can access it all too.
(In fact 64 bit addresses have been supported even in 32 bit wide PCI
since day 1).
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> BUT, don't the motherboards also have to support thi
Also, the PIII CAN'T natively support more than 4GB of ram. If a
particular PIII motherboard supports this, then it's using some kind of
wierd chipset that allows this to happen. 4GB is the limit with a 32 bit
chip I believe; and the PIII is a 32-bit chip.
Ken
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Rik van Riel wr
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
> Julian is on crack. DAC (Double Address Cycle) is a relatively recent
> addition to PCI that allows 32-bit cards with 64-bit savvy logic to talk
> to host memory using 64-bit target addresses.
well "day 1" was an exageration, but my 1995 PCI stuff a
> The costs involved in doing DMA to/from the memory region
> above 4G will be incredible, unless the address space is
> both exported, and known, to the PCI bus; even then, it
> could only work for 64 bit cards, since 32 bith cards will
> only be able to address the first 4G of physical memory.
Oh ok, I knew that regular PIII's only had 32 bits... but it's still
obviously a pain in the butt to use above 4GB.
Ken
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
>
> > Also, the PIII CAN'T natively support more than 4GB of ram. If a
> > particula
Rik van Riel wrote:
[ ... > 4G on 32 bit macines ... ]
> > The short answer is "you can't".
> >
> > The longer answer is that you end up having to window it using
> > segmentation;
>
> Only if you want to use it all within one process.
No. It still bites you if you want to do IPC, etc., since y
BUT, don't the motherboards also have to support this? And isn't it only
supported through some wierd segmentation thing?
KEn
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 02-Aug-01 Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> > Also, the PIII CAN'T natively support more than 4GB of ram. If a
> > particula
John Baldwin wrote:
> Err. hang on. This has zero to do with segmentation. Zip, nada.
> PAE is completely in the paging side of things. No matter what
> fun games you play with segmentation, you still end up with a
> 32-bit linear address that gets handed off to the paging translations.
> PAE j
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Name an OS that supports this; more than likely, you will
> have to appeal to a purpose built embedded system.
errr, linux?
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > On the really large machines, this can lead to the
> > situation where even the page tables hardly fit into
> > KVA. 4MB pages seem like the only solution ...
>
> There is no reason why we need to keep the
mark tinguely wrote:
> > Also, the PIII CAN'T natively support more than 4GB of ram. If a
> > particular PIII motherboard supports this, then it's using some kind of
> > wierd chipset that allows this to happen. 4GB is the limit with a 32 bit
> > chip I believe; and the PIII is a 32-bit chip.
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
> > I know PIII can support 64G physical memory. In FreeBSD how can I visit
> > such range memory(4G-64G) ?
>
> You can't. Those memory ranges are strictly off-limits to
> non-US citizens.
And under the DMCA, US citizens aren't allowed to build
or distribut
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > craig wrote:
> >
> >
> > I know PIII can support 64G physical memory. In FreeBSD how can I visit such
> > range memory(4G-64G) ?
>
> The short answer is "you can't".
>
> The longer answer is that you end up having to window it using
> segmentation;
Onl
You should format your messages in ascii to send to this list.
> I know PIII can support 64G physical memory. In FreeBSD how can I visit
> such range memory(4G-64G) ?
You can't. Those memory ranges are strictly off-limits to non-US
citizens.
--
... every activity meets with opposition, ever
> craig wrote:
>
>
> I know PIII can support 64G physical memory. In FreeBSD how can I visit such
> range memory(4G-64G) ?
The short answer is "you can't".
The longer answer is that you end up having to window it using
segmentation; if you are familiar with the 4k window on video
memory in the
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 08:53:38AM +0800, craig wrote:
>
> I know PIII can support 64G physical memory. In FreeBSD how can I
> visit such range memory(4G-64G) ?
You can't, right now.
Kris
PGP signature
37 matches
Mail list logo
