Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:35:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:35:48 -0400 Received: from [64.64.109.142] ([64.64.109.142]:8722 "EHLO quark.didntduck.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:35:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3B4B58FE.642136EB@didntduck.org> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:35:26 -0400 From: Brian Gerst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Wedgwood CC: Jesse Pollard , ttabi@interactivesi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What is the truth about Linux 2.4's RAM limitations? In-Reply-To: <200107101812.NAA01171@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil> <3B4B4966.996DD91E@didntduck.org> <20010711064355.F32421@weta.f00f.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:28:54PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote: > > Jesse Pollard wrote: > > > If the entire page table were given to a user, then a full cache > > flush would have to be done on every context switch and system > > call. That would be very slow, but would allow a full 4G address > > for the user. > > A full cache flush would be needed at every entry into the kernel, > including hardware interrupts. Very poor for performance. > > Why would a cache flush be necessary at all? I assume ia32 caches > where physically not virtually mapped? I meant TLB flush, sorry. -- Brian Gerst - 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/