On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 02:36:22PM -0800, Josue Emmanuel Amaro wrote:
> Andrea,
>
> We will give it a try.
>
> How difficult would it be to move that patch to 2.4?
I moved it to 2.4.0-test11-pre5 (should work with pre7 too):
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patch
Hello,
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 01:09:42AM +, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > Something like the attached old patch for 2.2. It is very
>
> It's not ok for 64bit archs.
Agreed. I see very different definitions for TASK_UNMAPPED_B
All,
Additional follow up.
The idea of modifying this variable is to increase the amount of memory that a
process can use. A database like Oracle can benefit from this because it allows
Oracle to create a bigger data buffer.
An obvious side effect of allocating more physical memory to a proces
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 01:09:42AM +, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> Something like the attached old patch for 2.2. It is very
It's not ok for 64bit archs.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please r
Hello,
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Josue Emmanuel Amaro wrote:
> It would be great if it could be a kernel configuration time option.
Something like the attached old patch for 2.2. It is very
optimistic in using 64MB as min value for TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE while
the real min is above 128MB
Andrea,
We will give it a try.
How difficult would it be to move that patch to 2.4?
It would be great if it could be a kernel configuration time option.
Regards,
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:27:07PM +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
> > Is this available as a patc
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:27:07PM +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
> Is this available as a patch, or preferably as a compilation option to
They're available here:
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/patches/v2.2/2.2.14/bigmem-large-mapping-1.bz2
ftp://
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:15:46AM -0800, Josue Emmanuel Amaro wrote:
> > (page.h). This works out to be a value of 0x400.
> ^ one more zero here
> > Are there any negative side effects in defi
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:15:46AM -0800, Josue Emmanuel Amaro wrote:
> (page.h). This works out to be a value of 0x400.
^ one more zero here
> Are there any negative side effects in defining TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE to 0x100?
I guess you m
All,
TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE is defined in include/asm-i386/processor.h as:
#define TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE(TASK_SIZE / 3)
The value of TASK_SIZE is defined as PAGE_OFFSET which is set to 0xC000
(page.h). This works out to be a value of 0x400.
The question is:
Are there any negative side ef
10 matches
Mail list logo
