[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:14:46AM +0100, Marco Al wrote:
> http://www.ee.umd.edu/~blj/papers/ieeetc50-5.pdf
> http://www.ee.umd.edu/~blj/papers/computer31-6.pdf
> Explain it "better" than me ... actually  I only just realised that I was a
> little hung up on the SASOS idea (for which you dont need segments). With
> the example mechanism in the first paper normal per process memory spaces
> are actually pretty trivial. The underlying global memory space still has to
> be larger than with a standard scheme, because it has to accomodate the
> total size of all the process spaces put together, but I doubt the costs are
> something simplification of the caches and removal of the TLB wont cover.

The main drawback is that you'll have to know the number of processes and
the maximum total memory size in advance. You can do that in an embedded
system (works pretty well there), but not in a general-purpose OS.

I'll have a look at those papers anyway :)
Maybe they trigger something...
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/