A processor uses $$2$$-level page tables for virtual to physical address translation. Page tables for both levels are stored in the main memory. Virtual and physical addresses are both $$32$$ bits wide. The memory is byte addressable. For virtual to physical address translation, the $$10$$ most significant bits of the virtual address are used as index into the first level page table while the next $$10$$ bits are used as index into the second level page table. The $$12$$ least significant bits of the virtual address are used as offset within thepage. Assume that the page table entries in both levels of page tables are $$4$$ bytes wide. Further, the processor has a translation look-aside buffer (TLB), with a hit rate of $$96$$%. The TLB caches recently used virtual page numbers and the corresponding physical page numbers. The processor also has a physically addressed cache with a hit rate of $$90$$%. Main memory access time is $$10$$ ns, cache access time is $$1$$ ns, and TLB access time is also $$1$$ ns.

Assuming that no page faults occur, the average time taken to access a virtual address is approximately (to the nearest $$0.5$$ ns)

Which of the following is NOT an advantage of using shared, dynamically linked libraries as opposed to using statically linked libraries?

Dynamic linking can cause security concerns because

Consider a machine with 64 MB physical memory and a 32-bit virtual address space. If the page size is 4KB, what is the approximate size of the page table?