![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> When handling 64 GB on i386, pte_addr_t really only >> needs 33 bits to find the PTE. It sure doesn't need >> the full 64 bits it is using. On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:44:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > yup. Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> How about cheating a bit? If the pte_addr_t only had >> the high 32 bits of the 36-bit pointer, it would point >> to a pair of the 8-byte PTEs in a 16-byte chunk of RAM. >> Then simply examine the PTEs to see which one is the >> correct one. On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:44:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > They might both map the same page. It could overflow into page->flags. An overflow area for the 33rd bits in pte_chains is another idea. A CONFIG_HIGHMEM32G is another. But Hugh's and/or Andrea's code sounds nicer than either of those. It doesn't get smaller than 0. -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||