Subject: Re: savecore_flags="-z"
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12/02/1999 14:25:18
In message <199912022210.OAA13993@lestat.nas.nasa.gov>Jason Thorpe writes
>On Thu, 02 Dec 1999 14:06:56 -0800
> Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, can NetBSD on i386 use Xeons this way -- to
> > make real use of physical memory > max per-process virtual memory?
> > Or do we have the same limit as that other free-unix system?
>...as Bill Sommerfeld said in a previous mail, we don't yet support
>the extended PTE format.
Let me try asking another way, then. Suppose we wanted to support
this (as Eduardo implied Sun does). Is it just a question of
supporting the PTE format in the i386 pmap, or are there other things
that'd break-- like, say, the kernel assuming it can simultaneously
map all of one user virtual-address space, plus all of physical
Does NetBSD already support phyical memory > max process virtual
address space on non-x86 hardware, like the Sun hardware Eduardo
mentioned, where the kernel can't map all of physical memory (or was
that a Solaris kernel?)