bqt at update.uu.se
Tue Jun 13 10:02:21 UTC 2006
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>From: John Nemeth [mailto:jnemeth at victoria.tc.ca]
>>>Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:15 PM
>>>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Nikolas Britton; Ted Unangst
>>>Cc: Hamorszky Balazs; misc at openbsd.org; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org;
>>>netbsd-users at NetBSD.org
>>>Subject: RE: wikipedia article
>>>On Nov 1, 6:11pm, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
>>>} Prior to the release of the 80386 the Intel processors didn't have
>>>} memory protection which was a requirement of any processor running
>>>} the BSD kernel.
>>> This is not entirely true. The 80286 had memory protection.
>>>However, its memory protection was completely based on segments (i.e.
>>>it could not do paging).
>>Oh, yeah, your right about that. Me bad.
>>>Also, it was only a 16 bit processor.
>>What was the bit size of the CPU's originally used to write UNIX in Bell
The PDP-7 was/is an 18-bit machine.
> What's more, iirc the MMU of the pdp11 isn't what we call a MMU today,
> it could not even do paging.
You're wrong. You could easily do paging on a PDP-11, if you wanted to.
The main reasons this wasn't done are two.
1) Each page is 8K. At the time, that was considered way too large pages
for a demand page system.
2) The address space is only 64 per process, which means you only have 8
pages. Not only is that perhaps a little little for meaningful paging
(most programs tend to refer to all 8 pages most of the time). The main
memory on a PDP-11 is furthermore 4 meg, so having a lot of processes
full memory space in physical memory at the same time is not a problem.
The PDP-11 MMU is a beatiful MMU. Nothing like the crap Intel spits out. ;-)
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
More information about the freebsd-questions