[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean