| |||||||||||||
Virtual Memory I: the problemVirtual Memory I: the problemPosted Mar 11, 2004 8:20 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)Parent article: Virtual Memory I: the problem I think you have the 3:1 split backwards. as I understand it the kernel gets the 3G portion and userspace gets 1G. there are patches to allow you to change it to 2G:2G and I believe I've seen either a 3:1 or a 2.5:1.5 (I don't remember which at the moment) but as you cut down the amount of address space available to the kernel other problems become more common.
(Log in to post comments)
Virtual Memory I: the problem Posted Mar 11, 2004 10:34 UTC (Thu) by axboe (subscriber, #904) [Link] Nah, it is you who gets it backward.
Virtual Memory I: the problem Posted Mar 11, 2004 11:51 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] If that were true any given process would only be able to address a third of the physical RAM in the system (on a fully-populated non-highmem box).This is considered silly, since process virtual memory requirements can be far higher than their physical requirements. :)
|
|||||||||||||