bqt at update.uu.se
Mon Apr 30 01:37:46 AEST 2018
On 2018-04-28 22:40, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Johnny Billquist
> > Gah. If I were to try and collect every copy made, it would be quite a
> > collection.
> Well, just the 'processor handbook's (the little paperback things), I have
> about 30. (If you add devices, that probably doubles it.) I think my
> collection is complete.
I have no idea how many different editions DEC printed. There were
certainly several done for some models, as well as several books that
covered different combinations of models. All in all, 30 does not
surprise me. And I would not be surprised if it were even more...
> > So there was a total change in terminology early in the 11/45 life, it
> > would appear. I wonder why. ... I probably would not blame some market
> > droids.
> I was joking, but also serious. I really do think it was most likely
> marketing-driven. (See below for why I don't think it was engineering-driven,
> which leaves....)
> I wonder if there's anything in the DEC archives (a big chunk of which are now
> at the CHM) which would shed any light? Some of the archives are online there,
> but it seems to be mostly engineering (although there's some that would be
> characterized as marketing).
Yeah. I've read a bunch of those memos in the past. I don't think they
in general were concerned with terminology, so I'm not surprised if you
don't find anything relevant there.
> > one of the most important differences between segmentation and pages are
> > that with segmentation you only have one contiguous range of memory,
> > described by a base and a length register. This will be a contiguous
> > range of memory both in virtual memory, and in physical memory.
> I agree completely (although I extend it to multiple segments, each of which
> has the characterstics you describe).
Right. The I think we're on the same page. I won't comment further on
the x86 which I mentioned before, since I think we can all agree that
that one is really brain damaged.
> Which is why I think the original DEC nomenclature for the PDP-11's memory
> management was more appropriate - the description above is _exactly_ the
> functionality provided for each of the 8 'chunks' (to temporarily use a
> neutral term) of PDP-11 address space, which don't quack like most other
> 'pages' (to use the 'if it quacks like a duck' standard).
This is where I disagree. The problem is that the chunks in the PDP-11
do not describe things from a zero offset, while a segment do. Only
chunk 0 is describing addresses from a 0 offset. And exactly which chunk
is selected is based on the virtual address, and nothing else.
It's a good analogy to view segments in the same way as you might view
them in object files, or sometimes even in executables. One segment is a
more or less self contained chunk, described by one segment descriptor,
or whatever you want to call them.
This is not possible to do on a PDP-11 with the chunks we have.
> One query I have comes from the usual goal of 'virtual memory' (which is the
> concept most tightly associated with 'pages'), which is to allow a process to
> run without all of its pages in physical memory.
> I don't know much about PDP-11 DEC OS's, but do any of them do this? (I.e.
> allow partial residency.) If not, that would be ironic (in view of the later
> name) - and, I think, evidence that the PDP-11 'chunks' aren't really pages.
Demand paging really is a separate thing from virtual memory. It's a
very bad thing to try and conflate the two.
There is nothing about virtual memory that says that you do not have to
have all of your virtual memory mapped to physical memory when the
process is running. Virtual memory is just *virtual* memory. It's not
"real" or physical in the sense that it has a dedicated location in
physical memory, which would be the same for all processes talking about
that memory address. Instead, each process has its own memory, which
might be mapped somewhere in physical memory, but it might also not be.
And one processes address 0 is not the same as another processes address
0. They both have the illusion that they have the full memory address
range to them selves, unaware of the fact that there are many processes
who also have that same illusion. And meanwhile, the OS has it's own
idea about the memory, and the OS also knows how the physical memory is
used, and keeps resources, and the allocation of them, under control on
behalf of the processes, without the processes knowing this.
Without virtual memory, each process would have to deal with physical
memory, and then each process would have to be aware of all the other
processes that use memory, and make sure that no two processes try to
use the same memory, or chaos ensues.
You can do virtual memory with segmentation as well. Since this also
means have a translation between your virtual address and a physical
address. It's just that the translations are a bit easier and more
straight forward with segments.
> BTW, did you know that prior to the -11/45, there was a memory management
> device for the PDP-11 which provided 'real' paging, the KT11-B? More here:
I knew about it, but have never read any technical details. Interesting
> I seem to recall some memos in the memo archive that discussed it; I _think_
> it mentioned why they decided not to go that way in doing memory management
> for the /45, but I forget the details? (Maybe the performance hit of keeping
> the page tables in main memory was significant?)_
There might have been several reasons, but performance would most likely
be one of them.
> > With segmentation you cannot have your virtual memory split up and
> > spread out over physical memory.
> Err, Multics did that; the process' address space was split up into many
> segments (a true 2-dimensional naming system, with 18 bits of segment number),
> which were then split up into pages, for both virtual memory ('not all
> resident'), and for physical memory allocation.
> Although I suppose one could view that as two separate, sequential steps -
> i.e. i) the division into segments, and ii) the division of segments into
> pages. In fact, I take this approach in describing the Multics memory system,
> since it's easier to understand as two independent things.
Yes. I definitely view that as two independent things stacked on top of
each other. And it would appear you do too. :-)
And that allows such a spread, as well as holes, through the paging
part. The segmentation part does not allow for it.
> > it would be very wrong to call what the PDP-11 have segmentation
> The problem is that what PDP-11 memory management does isn't really like
> _either_ segmentation, or paging, as practised in other machines. With only 8
> chunks, it's not like Multics etc, which have very large address spaces split
> up into many segments. (And maybe _that_'s why the name was changed - when
> people heard 'segments' they thought 'lots of them'.)
> However, it's not like paging on effectively all other systems with paging,
> because in them paging's used to provide virtual memory (in the sense of 'the
> process runs with pages missing from real memory'), and to make memory
> allocation simple by use of fixed-size page frames.
> So any name given PDP-11 'chunks' is going to have _some_ problems. It just
> thing 'segmentation' (as you defined it at the top) is a better fit than the
Agreed that there is some problem in classifying them either way.
However, the objection against pages are solely based on the fact that
they are not fixed in size, while with segments, it becomes much more
But how do you then view modern architectures which have different sized
pages? Are they no longer pages then?
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
More information about the TUHS