Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: gottlieb@×××.edu
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] re: NX (Execute Disable) protection cannot be enabled: non-PAE kernel! [dmesg]
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 02:17:36
Message-Id: 87eh7vgpce.fsf@nyu.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] re: NX (Execute Disable) protection cannot be enabled: non-PAE kernel! [dmesg] by Alan McKinnon
1 On Tue, Oct 08 2013, Alan McKinnon wrote:
2
3 > That is correct, with 3G physica RAM, you will not benefit from using
4 > PAE at all. I don't think it interferes with anything if you do have it,
5 > I recall a time when RedHat shipped 32 bit kernels that were PAE-enabled.
6 >
7 > Briefly, the way it works is that the kernel assigns blocks of memory to
8 > different processes. So a single process can still only access 4G of
9 > memory, but two different process don't anymore have to address the same
10 > 4G of memory like you must do without PAE. But you still don't get to
11 > give your 32 bit database more than 4g of RAM
12
13 Agreed. Virtual addresses refer to those in the program (really
14 process). Physical addresses address refer to those in the hardware
15 (i.e. addresses in the RAM itself). To have a single process able to
16 access extra memory would be to increase the *virtual* address range.
17 PAE (*physical* address extension) enables more RAM to be accessed (by
18 the hardware not by a single process), but does not increase the virtual
19 address range.
20
21 When pdp-11s added I and D space, that increased the virtual address
22 range by a factor of two. The I/D bit (instruction/data) was
23 essentially an extra bit of virtual address.
24
25 allan

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] re: NX (Execute Disable) protection cannot be enabled: non-PAE kernel! [dmesg] Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@×××××.com>