The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re:  Kernel Sizes
@ 2018-01-21 16:51 Doug McIlroy
  2018-01-21 19:44 ` Warner Losh
  2018-01-21 20:48 ` Steve Johnson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Doug McIlroy @ 2018-01-21 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)



A self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fully utilized.
When the iernel was rewritten in C, the limit (perhaps larger by then)
influenced the C compiler. More than one optimization was stimulated
by the need to keep the kernel in bounds.

Doug


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re: Kernel Sizes
  2018-01-21 16:51 [TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re: Kernel Sizes Doug McIlroy
@ 2018-01-21 19:44 ` Warner Losh
  2018-01-21 20:48 ` Steve Johnson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2018-01-21 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)


On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Doug McIlroy <doug at cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>
> A self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fully utilized.
> When the iernel was rewritten in C, the limit (perhaps larger by then)
> influenced the C compiler. More than one optimization was stimulated
> by the need to keep the kernel in bounds.
>

16k words or 16k bytes? Given some of the other reported sizes I'm guessing
it's bytes.

Warner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20180121/1c4ea1b0/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re:  Kernel Sizes
  2018-01-21 16:51 [TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re: Kernel Sizes Doug McIlroy
  2018-01-21 19:44 ` Warner Losh
@ 2018-01-21 20:48 ` Steve Johnson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Steve Johnson @ 2018-01-21 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

I seem to remember that at some point early on, we spent some of our
capital budget on buying another 16K bytes for the PDP-11.  As I
recall, the deal was that the OS got 8K and users got 8K.  I also
recall that that purchase was 20% of our capital budget for the
year...

Doug, did I remember this correctly?

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McIlroy" <doug@cs.dartmouth.edu>
To:<tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org>
Cc:
Sent:Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:51:29 -0500
Subject:[TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K
held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re: Kernel Sizes

 A self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fully utilized.
 When the iernel was rewritten in C, the limit (perhaps larger by
then)
 influenced the C compiler. More than one optimization was stimulated
 by the need to keep the kernel in bounds.

 Doug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20180121/51cdc36f/attachment.html>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-21 20:48 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-01-21 16:51 [TUHS] Subject: Re: KernelSizesA self-imposed limit of 16K held in v1, and was quite fullyutilized.Subject:Re: Kernel Sizes Doug McIlroy
2018-01-21 19:44 ` Warner Losh
2018-01-21 20:48 ` Steve Johnson

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).