Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!aglew From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Phys vs Virtual Addr Caches Message-ID: <28200041@ccvaxa> Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 10:17:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.28200041 Posted: Mon Jul 27 10:17:00 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jul-87 06:39:10 EDT References: <3904@spool.WISC.EDU> Lines: 14 Nf-ID: #R:spool.WISC.EDU:3904:ccvaxa:28200041:000:574 Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew Jul 27 09:17:00 1987 ...> Physical vs. virtual caches. Some of you may remember a discussion I started last year about systems where all processes would live in the same virtual address space. The bottom line was that UNIX fork() makes it highly desirable for processes to be able to duplicate their address space (although there are ways around it). This was prompted by the desire to avoid the consistency problems inherent in a virtual cache. Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. USEnet: ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms.arpa