From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id g0F07un26881 for linux-mips-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:07:56 -0800 Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g0F07rg26877 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:07:53 -0800 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g0EN7p329325; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:07:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:07:51 -0800 From: Ralf Baechle To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Matthew Dharm , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: MIPS64 status? Message-ID: <20020114150751.B29242@dea.linux-mips.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jgg@debian.org on Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:42:22PM -0700 X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:42:22PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > I have such hardware myself. IMHO the best option is the mips64 kernel and > I hope to try it someday. But in practice I'd guess that Ralf's highmem > patch is more likely to be usuable first (?). Depends if you can live with the problems of the current mips64 kernel. If you can then it's highmem-free memory managment is certainly the way to go. It's also not limited to peanuts numbers of gigabytes but can support as much memory as your can tack on a MIPS. Ralf