Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4

From: Josue Emmanuel Amaro (Josue.Amaro@oracle.com)
Date: Fri Nov 03 2000 - 14:15:46 EST

Next message: Kurt Roeckx: "conflicting types for `mktime' is userspave programs using libc5"
Previous message: Frederik Vanrenterghem: "Cmpci sound problem (test10)"
Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Maybe reply: Kai Harrekilde-Petersen: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Maybe reply: Julian Anastasov: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Reply: Josue Emmanuel Amaro: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

All,

TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE is defined in include/asm-i386/processor.h as:

#define TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE (TASK_SIZE / 3)

The value of TASK_SIZE is defined as PAGE_OFFSET which is set to 0xC0000000
(page.h). This works out to be a value of 0x4000000.

The question is:
Are there any negative side effects in defining TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE to 0x1000000?

By doing this we allow a process to access more memory. On Oracle it allows us
to grow our buffer size from 1.7 GB to 2.4 GB improving overall performance by
reducing I/O.

Thanks in advance,

--
=======================================================================
  Josue Emmanuel Amaro                         Josue.Amaro@oracle.com
  Linux Products Manager                       Phone:   650.506.1239
  Intel and Linux Technologies Group           Fax:     650.413.0167
=======================================================================

text/x-vcard attachment: Card for Josue Emmanuel Amaro

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

Next message: Kurt Roeckx: "conflicting types for `mktime' is userspave programs using libc5"
Previous message: Frederik Vanrenterghem: "Cmpci sound problem (test10)"
Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Maybe reply: Kai Harrekilde-Petersen: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Maybe reply: Julian Anastasov: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Reply: Josue Emmanuel Amaro: "Re: Value of TASK_UNMAPPED_SIZE on 2.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST