<div>Yes peter you r right..</div>
<div>But my main concern(which i dint convey properly in subject) is whether</div>
<div>virtual memory allocation has a limit or not.</div>
<div>I got it answered.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you ..<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Peter Teoh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:htmldeveloper@gmail.com">htmldeveloper@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">To answer your subject: I think the straight answer is "no". Many<br>reason, among them:<br>
<br>ARM is still 32-bit, at least at the present moment:<br><br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=does+arm+have+64bit&num=100" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=does+arm+have+64bit&num=100</a><br>
<br>so with hardware 32-bit based, doing MMU at the 64-bit level is still<br>not possible (without the MMU 64-bit hardware architecture, I don't<br>think it is possible to do any >4GB memory translation stuff. Am I<br>
not wrong?<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:54 PM, sandeep kumar<br><<a href="mailto:coolsandyforyou@gmail.com">coolsandyforyou@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Hi all,<br>> The following link gives the memory map for the arm architecture.<br>
> <a href="http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/memory.txt" target="_blank">http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/memory.txt</a><br>><br>> I have the following doubts..<br>> 1) Any chipset(based on arm) manufacturer(qualcom,samsung..) should follow<br>
> the same memory map.<br>> Is it hardly constrained or can be changed?<br>> Where are this constraints are implemented in the kernel source tree?<br>><br>> 2) while i was student, i read in OS concepts that, "Virtual memory gives an<br>
> illusion to a process,<br>> that it has always a larger continuous address space (even more than RAM)<br>> available to it."<br>> So i thought i could allocate howmuch ever memory i want.<br>> But seeing the above link,i observed there is some limitation in the address<br>
> space created by the vmalloc().<br>> So i m now thinking that vmalloc has some limit.<br>><br>> Please make me clear these things....<br>><br>><br>> With regards,<br>> Sandeep Kumar Anantapalli,<br>
><br></div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>> Kernelnewbies mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org">Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies" target="_blank">http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies</a><br>
><br>><br><br><br><br>--<br>Regards,<br><font color="#888888">Peter Teoh<br></font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>With regards,<br>Sandeep Kumar Anantapalli,<br><br>