Re: the new VMt [4MB+ blocks]

2000-09-25 Thread Stephen Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Sometimes allocating such monster memory blocks could be supported, > but it should not be expected to be *fast*. E.g. if doing it in > "reliable" way needs possibly moving currently allocated pages > away from memory to create such a hole(s), so be

Re: the new VMt [4MB+ blocks]

2000-09-25 Thread Matti Aarnio
[Chopped the recipient list radically] On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:06:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Stupidity has no limits... > > > Unfortunately its frequently wired into the hardware to save a few cents on > > > scatter gather logic. > > > > Since when hardware folks became exempt from

Re: the new VMt [4MB+ blocks]

2000-09-25 Thread Matti Aarnio
[Chopped the recipient list radically] On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:06:11PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: Stupidity has no limits... Unfortunately its frequently wired into the hardware to save a few cents on scatter gather logic. Since when hardware folks became exempt from the rule

Re: the new VMt [4MB+ blocks]

2000-09-25 Thread Stephen Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Sometimes allocating such monster memory blocks could be supported, but it should not be expected to be *fast*. E.g. if doing it in "reliable" way needs possibly moving currently allocated pages away from memory to create such a hole(s), so be it.