Formatting Tables Page 1 Of 9: Fill & Download for Free

I will answer this with respect to the x86_64 bit architecture.On a 64 bit machine the Page Table hierarchy consists of 4 levels:Level 0 is PML4E(Page-Map Level-4 Offset)Level 1 is PDPE(Page-Directory- Pointer Offset)Level 2 is PDP(Page-Directory Offset)Level 3 is PTE (Page Table Offset)On x86_64 bit architecture in Long Mode, each level of Page tables are 4KB physical pages themselves.The MMU (Memory Management Unit) translates a 64-bit Virtual address to Physical address by walking through these page tables.A 64-bit Virtual address is represented as shown figure below:The Physical address of the PML4e level page table is found by looking into the CR3 register (CR3 contains the physical address PML4e level of currently executing process).Once this base address is found, the MMU takes the bit 39 to 47 (total of 9 bits) as an index into the PML4E page table. The value into this index will give you the base address of the PDPE level of Page Table.Similarly, the next 9 bits (30 to 38) will give you an index in the PDPE page table which gives the base address of the PDE level page table entry.The same way we find an index into PDE for the base address of the PTE level Page Table using the next 9 bits(21 to 29).The next 9 bits(12 to 20) in the Virtual Address will give you an index in PTE which gives you the base address of the actual Physical Page which will contain the process data/code.The last 12 bits in the virtual address will give you an offset into the 4KB physical page where the process will read/write the data etc.Note: While page walking each level of Page Table the MMU will also check for the permission and other bits to move forward.Below is the format of each level entries in the Page Table for 4KB size page table.Reference: : AMD 64 bit Programmers Manual 2 Chapter 5.

Manual sections. The UNIX manual is divided into 8 sections:1 - user commands2 - system calls3 - standard library calls4 - special files (e.g. stuff in /dev)5 - file formats and conventions (e.g. stuff like /etc/passwd)6 - games7 - miscellaneous/unclassified (e.g. the ASCII table is in 7)8 - administration commands(There is a nonstandard section 9 used by some Linux kernel extensions, and sometimes also for items of humor.)This is itself documented in the manual page for man(1), and in the manual on manual pages, man-pages(7).There are some names that have entries in more than one section of the manual, and in this case the manual section must be explicitly specified to get to the entries that occur later in the search order.

I published 12 journal papers in good journals (10 or so as first author), a 100-page book chapter, a dissertation, and numerous conference papers during my 4-year PhD, here’s how I did it:Collaboration. Every PhD student should find some way to work with others and provide value to their work. I had a very good senior PhD student (2–3 years ahead of me) that mentored me, helping to show me the ropes, and in time I provided a valuable contribution to their work, earning me a co-authored journal paper. Likewise, I helped mentor the next PhD student, showing them the ropes, envisioning a research idea, project, and methodology, and helping with analysis - this led to a first author journal paper and some future co-authored papers. This is within a group where we had a minority element - there weren’t a whole lot of people that were on this research thread, but I made the most of it. That can be good for a few papers (in my instance) or many more if you have a large research group. It’s very important to publish first author papers too, though!Methodology. I had a combination of using previously developed methods, but also adding unique elements and methods myself. In this manner, down the road when papers were submitted, it wasn't turned away for lack of creativity or just applying what everyone is doing - these papers have a much more difficult burden of needing to find something new. In some ways, by envisioning new methods and ways of analyzing results, in many cases I already knew that what was at the end of the study was going to be novel in some way.Short letters and long papers. I used a combination of short and long journal papers. I evaluated whether the results of the study could be described in a short article and took advantage of that. My first short letter took me less than a day to write. I only had to have 3–4 figures. There was a lot of work behind that, but I didn’t have to describe everything to get across the point that I was trying to make with this article. And, the review process is much, much faster! This paper was in print in a few months - wow! Now, I often wrote much more detailed papers as well. In these, I could describe the methodology in detail, I could show multiple figures and tables, I could expand upon the discussion. I learned to use both, because they both play a role in communicating research.Different research areas. I used three different research areas and communities. I would publish a paper in one area and switch to another area. I had ideas for how to move ahead creative studies in each of these areas, and I had a plan for how I was going to do that. I didn’t start out thinking this way; it just happened. However, in my experience, you will find some resistance if you try to publish too many papers in the same confined research thread.Battle rhythm. I invested my first two years in learning almost everything that I would need, so that when it came time, I could sprint to the finish. I read the papers. I mapped out the ideas in my head. I knew where other groups were going, and where they weren’t going. I wrote the codes to execute the different research areas. I figured out how to visualize my data, how others write papers, how to present, etc. When it came time, I was executing a study, processing results, writing it up, and submitting to the review process. But, I wasn’t doing this in serial, I had this going in parallel. While I was writing paper #1, I was running study #2 - once I submitted paper #1, I was analyzing and writing up study #2, and running study #3. Once paper #1 came back with review comments, I addressed those ASAP to keep the train rolling. I got in a rhythm, so to speak.Review process. I learned how to get through the review process. Initially, I took some things personally and didn’t give ground. However, over time, I learned that there is usually a compromise or a way to address reviewer comments without giving up the points that you are trying to make. I almost never take things personally now. If they are confused, I don’t look at them as if “they must not be an expert in my field” or “they just don’t get it,” I say to myself, “this is a smart person on the other end, how can I clarify things so that they understand as well.” When you start to think about the reviewer as someone that’s trying to help you, even if it is through harsh criticism, you produce a much better product.Conference papers, then journal papers. I started honing my skills on conference papers in years 2 and 3, then moved on to journal papers. Lots of practice and feedback from your advisor is helpful.Figures. I took a lot of time to learn how to polish the figures. I thought about creative ways to show data. If you are spending time showing data in the same way as everyone else, sometimes that’s boring. I really like reviewing those papers where the authors have taken the time to look at their results in new ways. What is that for your field?Connectivity of papers. I had a way of connecting things together, but adding unique thoughts/ideas/findings/elements to each. So often, the reviewers may look at prior work and if there is none, then they are more critical because this may be the first study of its kind. I used parts of prior studies—methodologies, for instance— that were already reviewed, as a connecting piece. Then I would identify those parts that are new and unique. In that way, you are building on your other studies.Technical writing. I can’t impress enough how important technical writing is. I am an excellent writer, but I wasn’t that way from day 1 of PhD. Actually, when I couldn’t take some required course for PhD students, I took the “Technical Communications” class in lieu, which was mainly for foreign nationals. It was great! I learned a lot. I am a very logical person, and I learned tricks, format, etc., that helped me write in a very structured way. Essentially, to eliminate the need for thinking too hard about the writing. For instance, abstract—one sentence about background, one sentence about research/study objective, one sentence about methods used, a sentence or two about an important finding, a sentence about the significance of that finding. I’ve never thought about how to write an abstract again, I have a quick formula.Know your reviewers, know your journals. Can’t emphasize this enough. When they ask who can review your work, think of people that are in a similar research area that would appreciate this work. You find these people at conferences, in the literature, etc. Even if they reject it, you are starting to be on their radar. Their critical comments are fuel for that paper and perhaps a future paper. If you try to choose the “easy” reviewer, you may get it published, but the feedback doesn’t help you become a better researcher or improve your research. Same thing goes with journals - aim high, get feedback, use that feedback to improve.Don’t give up. I submitted my first paper to Physical Review B, a premier physics journal. I received major revisions with multiple pages of critical comments. I took it personally. I thought the work must not have been good enough. I never submitted that work again. Looking back, that was excellent work and I could have addressed the comments fairly easily, but I didn’t know that at the time. I could have had an excellent paper in a premier journal by addressing reviewer comments (from an excellent faculty—I have an inkling of who that is now), but I took the comments personally rather than as them trying to point me in the right direction to improve the work. Still kicking myself for that. Don’t give up!Luck? I obviously was fortunate to pick an area and advisor where the research project and studies aren’t ruled by the “let’s keep throwing out hypothesis, and test, and if we find something, let’s publish” mantra. I chose areas where I could design a study, execute that study, and I knew that the community could learn something new based on the results—good or bad. Not all areas are the same. I turned down another excellent advisor at a different university because the project sounded like “we do this, then look at what happens on the nanoscale, and if we find something, then it will be groundbreaking.” My question, “but what if you don’t?” “Well, then we do it again, over the years you find ways to increase the likelihood that you find something.” Hmm… sounds like luck to me. I steered away from that one.Best of luck everyone!