public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stas Sergeev <stssppnn@yahoo.com>
To: "Jos Hulzink" <josh@stack.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Denis Vlasenko" <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
Subject: Re: Larger IO bitmap?
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 01:47:07 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DC455EB.8010803@yahoo.com> (raw)

Hello.

Jos Hulzink wrote:
> Increasing the IO bitmap size has huge effects on your Task State Segment 
> size. It sure is possible to increase that size, but be aware that this 
> means you are using megabytes for your TSS's only !
As far as I can read the code
(not too far actually, so correct
me please), we have a per-process
IO bitmap copy, which gets copied
into a per-cpu TSS upon a task switch.
That means that you are right about the
overhead, but at the same time I see
nothing that keeps us from a dynamic
memory allocation for the per-process
copy, as soon as an ioperm() is called.
Is this possible?

> Running iopl(3) isn't that bad, as long as your code knows what it is 
> doing... 
> Ioperm is only needed for virtual 8086 mode (aka DOS emulation mode) 
> With this in mind, dosemu is the only reason why the bitmap should be 
> extended.
Well, at least I think that the VESA
driver of X also uses v86 for the video
bios invocations. It doesn't sucks as badly
as dosemu does probably because even using
vm86(), they still can keep IOPL==3, dosemu
can't. So I think that would still be an
improvement, probably not so noticeable as
it could be for dosemu, but still.

> In my humble opinion, dosemu is not important enough to make TSS's huge 
> bloated things by default.
What if we treat dosemu not as a single
program, but as all that progs that can
work under it and require VESA?:)

> Well... it might be an option in the kernel on x86 systems: [ ] bloat 
> kernel 
> memory usage with huge TSS's, but I really thing this should not be the 
> default way to go.
By any means I am not going to pollute the
memory by a useless per-process IO bitmap
copies. As we have a per-cpu TSS (thanks for
the hint, Denis), we'd have bloat only on a
per-process copies, but I wonder if it is
possible to avoid them except for the processes
that require it?

I wouldn't ask so much and just try the things
out, but for the one thing: what must be done,
besides increasing the IO_BITMAP_SIZE const of a
processor.h, in order to get the larger IO bitmap
right now? As I want to experement a bit, I
need to get it large at first, no matter how much
memory will it eat. But how can I do even that?


             reply	other threads:[~2002-11-02 22:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-02 22:47 Stas Sergeev [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-11-02 23:56 Larger IO bitmap? Stas Sergeev
2002-11-02 18:21 Stas Sergeev
2002-11-02 21:48 ` Jos Hulzink
2002-11-02 23:19   ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-11-03  1:42   ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-11-02 23:38 ` Denis Vlasenko

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=3DC455EB.8010803@yahoo.com \
    --to=stssppnn@yahoo.com \
    --cc=josh@stack.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
    /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