lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Thread implementations...
Dean Gaudet writes:
>
>
> On 24 Jun 1998, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "RG" == Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> writes:
> >
> > RG> If we get madvise(2) right, we don't need sendfile(2), correct?
> >
> > It looks like it from here. As far as madvise goes, I think we need
> > to implement madvise(2) as:
>
> ... note that mmap() requires a bunch of kernel structures set up to map
> things into the program's memory space... when in reality the program
> doesn't care at all about the bytes. (And then there's process address
> space limitations...) sendfile() and such don't have these problems, and
> it may be far more simple to implement sendfile() than it would be to put
> all the hints and such into the mm layer to get mmap() performance up to
> the same level.

This may be true, but my point is that we *need* a decent madvise(2)
implementation. It will be use to a greater range of applications than
sendfile(2).

Regards,

Richard....

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:1.262 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site