Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Jun 1998 13:53:36 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |