From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Thu Apr 7 04:42:24 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Subject: [MiNT] MMU usage in MiNT, fork/mmap From: "Evan K. Langlois" To: mint@fishpool.com Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Cool Running Concepts Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:39:24 -0500 Message-Id: <1112841566.22639.7.camel@taro.coolrunningconcepts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc14.midphase.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - fishpool.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - CoolRunningConcepts.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: Evan@CoolRunningConcepts.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: I know MiNT can "use an MMU", or so people have sworn to me, but last I knew this was only for memory protection, but it did not provide a virtual address space for applications. I've been told this isn't an issue as virtual memory wasn't a requirement. However, I see other problems. This means that a proper fork() is next to impossible, among other issues, such as memory fragmentation still being a problem since the system can't glue pages together into a single block with the MMU (ok, probably best if we never have to do any such thing). So .. my question .. whats the current state of MiNT and its MMU usage? Can completely different pages of real memory be mapped to same address in different processes? If not, is anyone working on this? Thanks, Evan