From: "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com>
To: "Shawn Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
Cc: "Junio C Hamano" <junkio@cox.net>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/17] Sliding window mmap for packfiles.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 10:36:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0612240136r559376d4s14af3123f762a45d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061224090508.GF7443@spearce.org>
On 12/24/06, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/23/06, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> > >This 17 patch series implements my much discussed, but never produced
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >This series also permits accessing packfiles up to 4 GiB in size,
> > >even on systems which permit only 2 GiB of virtual memory within
> > >a single process (e.g. Windows and some older UNIXes). Of course
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, do you mean that there are some OS running on
> > 32 bits machines which allow 4GiB size of virtual memory within a
> > single process ? If so, could you give an example of such OS ?
>
> No. What I meant was the Git packfile/index format currently
> supports up to 4 GiB of data in a single packfile. But *no*
> OS using 32 bit virtual address space would permit us to access
> that packfile prior to this series as we would have *no* memory
> left for a stack, let alone for parsing commits, etc., as *all*
> of the address space would have been dedicated to the packfile.
>
ok.
> However with this series even a 32 bit OS which only permits
> processes to have at most 2 GiB of address space (2 GiB split
> between kernel space and userspace) can access packfiles up
> to 4 GiB in size. That seems to be the split most OSes wind
> up using, if they didn't push it out to 3.2 GiB like Linux
> and Solaris have done.
>
Does it still needed for 64 bit OS ?
if not, can the overhead (if there is a significant one) implied by
your rework be avoid for such cases ?
> This series is a good change because Git can now really make
> full use of the space allowed by a single packfile. :-)
>
Yes I agree with you.
--
Francis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-24 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-23 7:33 [PATCH 0/17] Sliding window mmap for packfiles Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-23 9:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-23 9:42 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-24 8:56 ` Francis Moreau
2006-12-24 9:05 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-24 9:36 ` Francis Moreau [this message]
2006-12-24 9:49 ` Shawn Pearce
2007-01-02 15:28 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-24 9:29 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=38b2ab8a0612240136r559376d4s14af3123f762a45d@mail.gmail.com \
--to=francis.moro@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).