[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: hammer: MAP_32BIT

    Ulrich Drepper wrote:
    > Hash: SHA1
    > Timothy Miller wrote:
    >>If your program is capable of handling an address with more than 32
    >>bits, what point is there giving a hint? Either your program can handle
    >>64-bit pointers or it cannot. Any program flexible enough to handle
    >>either size dynamically would expend enough overhead checking that it
    >>would be worse than if it just made a hard choice.
    > Look at the x86-64 context switching code. If memory addressed by the
    > GDT entries has a 32-bit address it uses a different method than for
    > cases where the virtual address has more than 32 bits. This way of
    > handling GDT entries is faster according to ak. So, it's not a
    > correctness thing, it's a performance thing.

    Alright. Sounds great. So my next question is this:

    Why does there ever need to be an explicit HINT that you would prefer a
    <32 bit address, when it's known a priori that <32 is better? Why
    doesn't the mapping code ALWAYS try to use 32-bit addresses before
    resorting to 64-bit?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.019 / U:14.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site