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