Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: discontiguous memory platforms | Date | Thu, 2 May 2002 20:39:52 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 02 May 2002 20:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2002, Roman Zippel wrote: > > On Thu, 2 May 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > What I > > > care about is not to clobber the common code with additional overlapping > > > common code abstractions. > > > > Just to throw in an alternative: On m68k we map currently everything > > together into a single virtual area. This means the virtual<->physical > > conversion is a bit more expensive and mem_map is simply indexed by the > > the virtual address. > > It works nicely, it just needs two small patches in the initializition > > code, which aren't integrated yet. I think it's very close to what Daniel > > wants, only that the logical and virtual address are identical. > > I also want to add that the order (by address) of the virtual chunk is not > necessarily the same as the order (by address) of the physical chunks. > > So it's perfect possible to put the kernel in the second physical chunk, in > which case the first physical chunk (with a lower physical address) ends up in > the virtual list behind the first physical chunk. > > IIRC (/me no Linux mm whizard), the above reason was the main reason why the > current zone system doesn't work well for m68k boxes (mainly talking about > Amiga).
Config_nonlinear will handle this situation without difficulty.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |