| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <47399432.4090908@aitel.hist.no> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:10:26 +0100 From: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no> To: Yoav Artzi <yoavar@...ckpoint.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: PAGE_SIZE on 64bit and 32bit machines Yoav Artzi wrote: > According to my knowledge the PAGE_SIZE on 32bit architectures in 4KB. > Logically, the PAGE_SIZE on 64bit architectures should be 8KB. That's > at least the way I understand it. However, looking at the kernel code > of x86_64, I see the PAGE_SIZE is 4KB. > > > Can anyone explain to me what am I missing here? Only that there are no connection at all between the page size and the number of bits the processor uses. The cpu designer simply makes independent decisions for both cases. So i386 uses 4kB pages because intel designed their processor that way. And x86_64 uses 4kB pages because AMD designed the architecture that way. And some processors use 8kB or 16kB pages because that is how they work. A few processors offer a selection of page sizes, it is then up to the architecture maintainer to make a choice between them. No such choice exists for intel/amd, unless you count the unrealistic option of using generic 2MB pages. Having said that, it is possible to get a feel of what a 8kB page system will be like on intel, by always allocating pages in pairs. Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists