| |||||||||||||
Virtual Memory II: the return of objrmapVirtual Memory II: the return of objrmapPosted Mar 18, 2004 13:42 UTC (Thu) by leandro (guest, #1460)Parent article: Virtual Memory II: the return of objrmap
I guess even Linus sometimes bows to pressure. After all, all this complication is quite unnecessary, it is a decade now that we've had 64 bits processors. Nothing but Wintel FUD and proprietary software prevents users from running 64 bits now. It could be argued that 64 bits vendors haven't been doing the right thing. Now Linus is on a POWER64 machine, but he should have been there for a long time, or on UltraSPARC. A pity Intel killed the Alpha, which was once Linus' platform. Also other developers should have been long ago given such systems. I hope the BSDs and the Hurd stick to sanity.
(Log in to post comments)
Virtual Memory II: the return of objrmap Posted Mar 21, 2004 15:34 UTC (Sun) by alpharomeo (guest, #20341) [Link] Not sure what "Intel killed the Alpha" means. Alphas are available now (e.g., Compaq ES-47) and the Alpha technology is planned to be integrated into the Itanium product line starting in '06. Do you know something different?
Virtual Memory II: the return of objrmap Posted Apr 16, 2004 18:20 UTC (Fri) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link] > what "Intel killed the Alpha" means Alpha ceased to be developed. > Alphas are available now (e.g., Compaq ES-47) Expensive, limited, substandard. In other words, not developed neither as technology nor as a platform. > the Alpha technology is planned to be integrated into the Itanium Processor architecture is not like Lego where you can mix and match. The Itanium and Alpha architectures are fundamentally different and philosophically opposed. Some Alpha tricks may be incorporated into Itanium, but it will never see the potential Alpha had, and POWER still has but with a different focus. Some argue that nothing has the potential Alpha had.
Virtual Memory II: the return of objrmap Posted May 24, 2004 7:19 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Low memory on 32bit systems is still 2Gb! And if it's not enough for some structures on 32Gb system then obviously something is wrong: 10% for book-keeping is too much IMO (cache misses and all). So this patch is sane. True, only huge 32bit systems make it 2.6 and not 2.7 material but patch itself is sane - it's good for huge 64bit systems as well (not sure about small systems), just not essential there.
|
|||||||||||||