Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Not sure if the Linux x86 maintainers would accept it though, but it could be a fun project.
Pettenò: Debunking x32 myths
Posted Jun 26, 2012 2:52 UTC (Tue) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071)
Even phones and tablets are pushing the 2GB mark.
Sure, truly small embedded Linux devices continue to exist and will for a long time to come. They're rarely x86 or x64, and aren't likely to be, so x32 is irrelevant for them.
Posted Jun 26, 2012 3:37 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Right now the biggest process on my development machine is a Java process running IntelliJ IDEA with a large project (about 1MLOC) opened. It's a whopping 600Mb monster using 1096Mb of address space.
Posted Jun 26, 2012 5:04 UTC (Tue) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071)
The context probably got lost as it's several parent posts up. I wasn't referring to x32 in general being pointless, but to the development of an x32 kernel. I don't see the notion of a kernel that lives in the lower 4GB and uses mostly 32-bit pointers while using the native x64 mode to be particularly useful.
I can maybe see x32 with a 64-bit kernel, which is the only thing the x32 folks ever proposed, being useful.
Posted Jun 26, 2012 6:24 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Of course, I completely agree with you given the context of x32 kernel.
Posted Jun 26, 2012 7:26 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
Posted Jun 27, 2012 16:05 UTC (Wed) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
Posted Jun 26, 2012 3:38 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
As a result, any system up to 4G is perfectly happy as x32, and if the system is doing more than one thing, you could easily get 16G or larger systems without needing 64 bit binaries.
And if you are doing VMs, this is the size of the VM, not the size of the overall system.
Posted Jun 26, 2012 5:06 UTC (Tue) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071)
The context of the reply was someone proposing an "x32" kernel.
x32 userspace with an x64 kernel makes sense (ish) and that's all the x32 folks themselves ever proposed.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds