Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
64-bit performance64-bit performancePosted Apr 15, 2008 19:39 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: 64-bit performance by laf0rge Parent article: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)
That's very interesting. Has anybody tried working around this? One solution would be convert hot 64-bit ptr fields to 32-bit offsets pointing into a single memory pool. I'm not familiar enough with the networking code to know how traumatic this would be. (I'm definitely not saying do this everywhere; just where it really matters). This topic might make a fairly fascinating paper. :)
(Log in to post comments)
64-bit performance Posted Apr 18, 2008 6:07 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link] We should have pointers of a size intermediate between 32 and 64 bits, let's say 40-bit pointers. The point being that the it'd be large enough to address the RAM necessary but doesn't waste so much space. I really don't think we'll ever grow to the point where we'll use all of the 64-bit pointer address space, and pointers with top 20-30 bits unused are just wasted space. Too bad that the whole world thinks in 2^n.
|
|
||||||||||||