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

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

To: <f-cpu@seul.org>
Subject: Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
From: "Marco Al" <marco@simplex.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:45:36 +0100
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: f-cpu-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-To: f-cpu@seul.org
Delivery-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:45:37 -0500
References: <200203050817.12d8@th00.opsion.fr> <000201c1c446$3e45c840$13eac2d4@ifurita>
Reply-To: f-cpu@seul.org
Sender: owner-f-cpu@seul.org

From: "Christophe" <christophe.avoinne@laposte.net>


> 64 KB process is not enough but threads can surely use less than 64 KB.

Not processes with 64 KB memory space :) 64K processes which can share the
global address space at the same time, in the example 65536 processes can
have 4 GB address spaces (half that would be kernel space of course).

Marco

*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/

References:
- Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
  - From: "Nicolas Boulay" <nicolas.boulay@ifrance.com>
- Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
  - From: "Christophe" <christophe.avoinne@laposte.net>

Prev by Date: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
Next by Date: Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
Prev by thread: Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
Next by thread: Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] virtually or physically-addressed cache ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread