[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Using Linux swap devices in the Hurd.



Howdy,

	I set my swap device (obsolete method, in /boot/servers.boot) as
hd0s9 (because it corresponds to my Linux swap partition) and I get a
message somewhat like this on boot:

[blah hd0s9] Found Linux swap signature [blah] (1165k swap) (64588k 
unusable).

[ the numbers I'm suppyling are general ]

The swap parititon is about 64 megs.

Why wouldn't it be able to make use of it? Aren't swap partitions just
treated as a linear chunk of memory?

I rather need to make use of it because it seems that I'm not able to get
away with 16 megs of RAM. A lot of utilities seem to still be buggy and
probably allocate more memory than they should. (I got that once when
attempting to read a bad device in /dev (./MAKDEV hd0s9) as well as when I
tried to dpkg install the gcc .deb)

The gcc .deb caused a kernel panic (obviously because it couldn't allocate
enough memory for it, as the error message confirmed).

Hope this is helpful, I really should keep a notebook on hand. :)


Oh, just a side question that popped into my head when rummaging around in 
the book store.

I was reading through the AT&T UNIX source code a few days ago and
stumbled upon a chunk of code that loaded text segment from executables
into a specific structure so a system that was running multiple instances
of the same program just refers to that same block of memory... (freeing
the slot when the reference count reaches zero, unless the sticky-bit is
set).

I also read that Mach treats all memory the same. It makes no difference
between program "text" and "data" and has a unified memory allocation
system. How (or where) is something like what UNIX does accomplished?

My guess would be the exec server.

/* ----------
 Michael Bacarella( mbac@nyct.net )          | (212) 293-2620
 Administration / Development / Support      | http://nyct.net/	
 [ N e w  Y o r k  C o n n e c t . N E T ]   | info@nyct.net
 Bringing New York The Internet Service It Deserves!
--------- */


Reply to: