Connect with us

PC memory map

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Tom Del Rosso, Jun 18, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Why do PC's have memory-mapped I/O below 3GB? I have 3GB and 2.75 is
    usable. The top GB should be big enough to map all the hardware.
     
  2. Jasen Betts

    Jasen Betts Guest

    in 1980 people running DOS wanted to look at text on their screens etc.
    maybe that missing 265M is being used by the onboard graphics chipset?
     
  3. Jasen Betts

    Jasen Betts Guest

    i meant "256"
     
  4. Nobody

    Nobody Guest

    It's common for 1 GiB to be allocated to PCI (and PCIe) regardless of
    whether you actually have any PCI devices installed. This may be
    configurable via the BIOS.

    Once you go above 2 GiB of RAM, you really need to consider using a
    64-bit OS. 32-bit "desktop" versions of Windows (anything which isn't
    called "Windows <something> Server") don't support a physical address
    space larger than 4 GiB, and some of that 4 GiB (quite a lot of it, in
    fact) is allocated to things other than system RAM.
     
  5. That was 384k, not 256M.

    Obviously it is, but the question is why do they assign so much space for
    I/O. The I/O space is scattered all over, so the RAM is remapped, but I see
    no reason why it should add up to1.25GB.
     
  6. Guest

    Are you talking about virtual address space or physical address space?

    The x86 virtual address space is based on 32 bit addresses, thus
    theoretically capable of addressing 4 GiB _per_segment_.

    Yes, the 32 bit segment registers are still there, but in practice,
    the CS:, DS:, SS:, ES: etc. registers are mapped to the same
    addresses.

    Anyway, by stupid design, the generated segmented virtual addresses
    are truncated to 32 bits, before applying to the virtual to physical
    address translation :-(.

    At least since the Pentium II days, the internal physical address has
    been 36 bits wide, potentially capable of addressing 64 GiB of memory,
    However, the older chips did not bring out the highest address bits to
    output pins of the chip, thus, the maximum physical memory was less
    than 64 GiB.
     
  7. There is a good article over on TechNet, during Xp development they
    tried using memory above 4G
    but found out that most drivers truncated the addresses as you say. So
    in keeping everything reliable they kept the
    I/O below 4G.
    That why x64 has no problem, the drivers are written for a larger
    memory map.

    Cheers
     
  8. I'm just asking about the size of the I/O space. If I/O takes 0.25GB out of
    my 3GB of physical RAM, then it must not fit in 1GB. The video card is
    256MB so I don't understand why I/O has to take so much. The minimum
    assigned to I/O depends on the motherboard, but 1.25GB is a big minimum.
    AFAIK it's never less than 500MB.

    Yeah, almost forgot that.

    All set to zero I assume.

    So the segment registers stick out 4 bits just like they did when they were
    all 16 bit.
     
  9. Go to device monitor and View->Resources by Type

    You'll see your video card is probably listed twice for dual monitor
    support, hence 500MB

    Cheers
     
  10. josephkk

    josephkk Guest

    I am confused as well. Normally it is getting 3.25 or 3.5 GiB out of 4
    GiB that is the issue. BIOS written to a bungled translation? Video
    cards typically use one or two 128 MiB windows, mostly for texture maps; 2
    megapixels times 32 bit color needs only 8 MiB. NICs (including
    1000base-x) rarely use more than 1 MiB, the OS allocates disk buffers out
    of available ram, and what other peripheral uses anything like that kind
    of bandwidth?

    ?-/
     
  11. Guest

    To the OP:

    I assume that you are saying that you have 3 GiB of _physical_ memory
    on your PC.

    Then you claim that only 2.75 GiB of _virtual_ memory is usable.

    Your computer is fully capable of using the whole 3 GiB of physical
    DRAMs, see below.
    Old 1970's 32 bit virtual memory operating systems, such as VAX/VMS
    had the 4 GiB virtual address space divided in two sections, the lower
    2 GiB was process private address space and the upper 2 GiB was fixed
    kernel address space. The user mode code could not access the upper 2
    GiB and the kernel mode code had to remap the lower 2 GiB to the
    currently active user mode process.

    This structure was carried over to Windows NT (same designer), but on
    some server versions, user mode could be extended to 0-3 GiB and
    kernel 3-4 GiB.

    Starting with Windows NT 4.0, the display handling routines and screen
    memory was moved to user mode to improve performance, by avoiding the
    user/kernel/user mode switching for each video memory update.

    From the OP's posting, it appears that the user mode _virtual address_
    memory extends from 0-2.75 GiB, 2.75-3 GiB is some peripherals,
    including video-RAM and 3-4 GiB of virtual memory is kernel (of which
    100-300 MiB is actually used).

    Thus, a single process can't use the whole 3 GiB _physical_ memory,
    however assuming 200 MiB for kernel code, there would still be 2800
    MiB available for user processes and it could accommodate two user
    mode processes with 1400 MiB each or four 700 MiB, without page file.

    In a real system with multiple processes the 3 GiB or even large
    _physical_ memory will be utilized.

    The internal architecture of x86-32 processors allow 64 GiB of
    physical RAM (all chip models do not export all address lines, so the
    actual size is less). To fully utilize that 64 GiB physical memory,
    you need at least 30 processes with 2 GiB each, not an unrealistic
    demand for a server machine.
     
  12. No, Windows reports 2,883,052k of physical RAM. This depends on the
    hardware and it varies, but all PC's that I've seen have at least a few
    dozen MB missing. The 286 had 16 MB addressable and those PC's must have
    had a chunk taken out in addition to the 384k of the original PC, but the
    big chunk missing from 32 bit PC's suggests that much more address space was
    allocated to I/O in this generation of the PC standard, and that a lot of it
    was allocated below 3GB.

    That's starting to make sense. But if the OS maps video RAM to below 3GB,
    then can't it map the RAM at the physical addresses below 3GB to above 3GB?
    Even if the user processes can't use it, it could be disk cache etc.
     
  13. Guest

    On hardware supporting virtual memory, there is not much point of
    using RAM disks in the traditional sense, instead memory mapped files
    are used to store huge data bases. The main memory RAM is effectively
    just the L3 (or L4) cache.

    48/64 bit virtual address space and data registers are needed for easy
    memory mapped file access, but a 32 bit program counter is quite
    sufficient.
    Even a 32 bit program counter is capable of accessing 4 GiB (in the
    data segment in the x86 case). That is a huge amount of code, in
    practice with lots of bugs, potentially doing damage within the huge
    virtual address space. Any sensible application design will divide a
    huge problem into multiple processes, each in a separate address
    space, so a single bug does not take down the whole application.

    However a very wide data access is definitively needed in many
    applications in order to access huge physical RAM or using huge memory
    mapped files, distributed around a large disk farm.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-