From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:33:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:33:17 -0400 Received: from mail3.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.38]:457 "EHLO mail3.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 May 2002 01:33:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 22:33:24 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Robert Love , Clifford White cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: x86 question: Can a process have > 3GB memory? Message-ID: <157212850.1020810803@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <1020812936.2079.31.camel@bigsur> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > You can go to 3.5GB, anything more and stuff starts getting real tight > and not very nice. You can only do 3.5/0.5 on non-PAE, though - PAE > requires segments to be aligned on 1GB-boundaries. > > The attached patch (for which credit goes elsewhere - Ingo or Randy, I > think?) implements the full range of 1 to 3.5GB user space partitioning, > selectable at compile-time. The trouble with this is that on a machine with enough memory to make it worthwhile, it normally just runs you out of zone_normal instead ;-( M.