From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BZDuC-0000fB-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:11:04 +0200 Received: from arennes-303-1-34-114.w81-250.abo.wanadoo.fr ([81.250.16.114]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:11:04 +0200 Received: from tyler by arennes-303-1-34-114.w81-250.abo.wanadoo.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:11:04 +0200 From: Tyler Subject: Memory management questions Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:02:16 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi all, I've always thinked that paging or virtual memory was practical to avoid memory fragmentation. I thinked that you can map contiguous virtual pages to non contiguous physical page frames. But let's take a look at the macros __va(x) and __pa(x) : #define __pa(x) ((unsigned long)x-PAGE_OFFSET) #define __va(x) ((unsigned long)x+PAGE_OFFSET) PAGE_OFFSET is a constant. For me, this means that virtual contiguous adresses have to be mapped to contiguous physical adresses. Am I wrong ?:) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org