Re: VM modules in kernel?

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 24 2000 - 17:40:35 EST

  • Next message: David Schwartz: "RE: Overcommitable memory??"

    > >Remember something here. IBM tuned the hardware to this, and to an extent
    > >they tuned the software on top of VM. They have a lot of cards to play that
    > >Motorola m68K chips did but x86 does not.
    >
    > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here Alan... My
    > guess is you're taking VM to mean the kernel virtual memory
    > system, when I'm meaning it to be "virtual machine". So my

    No Im taking it to mean virtual machine. In paticular VM on S/390 hardware.

    > The 'hypervisor' is a new term to me.. Are you refering to the
    > Transmeta CPU and it's native mode? If I read you correctly

    No its what the S/390 VM is often called. Its a supervisor for supervisor
    mode programs so illogically enough its a hypervisor 8). The IBM mainframe
    guys thing this kind of set up is routine. Unix is met with
    'You mean you cant run a new kernel on test at the same time as the old
    one' type remarks.

    > here, then we could have a native VLIW kernel running on the
    > Crusoe, which opens an x86 API to userland? Correct me if I'm
    > wrong.

    As I understamd it the VLIW code isnt accessible

    > Have you been dipping into the bubbly a bit? ;o)

    Not today.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 24 2000 - 18:10:12 EST