Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?

[Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>]

Christophe wrote:

> There is a difference between what you can do and what you can
> efficiently
> do. In such a scheme if you have say a 48 bit global address space and
> you
> are using 32 bit addresses with byte addressing you can efficiently run
> 65K
> processes with 2 GB address spaces each, that is not to say you cant run
> more you will just have to make changes in the global address space and
> either flush the cache or walk it to invalidate affected cachelines each
> time a process not on the list is "swapped" in. Would even a hard limit
> of
> 65K 4GB address spaces really present any issue for a general purpose OS
> though? :)

But really what runs 65K processes at once? In all fairness to the CPU
really
should run 1 process. Need another process ... buy a second , third... A
large
system while it does have need for large taskes and addresses space is
really
a network of interconnected computers and would not the network define
what
process runs where and addressing. 

-- 
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/