[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] generic nonlinear mappings, 2.5.44-mm2-D0

    On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

    > what is the reason for that interface? It looks like a gross
    > performance hack for misdesigned applications to me, kindof windowsish..

    there are a number of reasons why we very much want this extension to the
    Linux VM. Please catch up with the full email discussion, check out the
    first announcement of the interface to lkml, the subject of the email was:
    "[patch, feature] nonlinear mappings, prefaulting support, 2.5.42-F8".

    (and add one more application category to the list of beneficiaries,
    NPTL-style threading libraries, see the "[patch] mmap-speedup-2.5.42-C3"
    discussion on lkml.)

    I think it is quite a bit architectural step for the Linux VM to have more
    generic vmas that 1) can be nonlinear 2) can have finegrained, non-uniform
    protection bits. It has been clearly established in the past few years
    empirically that the vma tree approach itself sucks performance-wise for
    applications that have many different mappings.

    And is it a big problem that RAM-windowing applications can make use of
    the new capabilities as well, to overcome the limits of 32 bits? Your
    response is a bit knee-jerk, what do you think the kernel itself does when
    it piggybacks to the highmem range and using kmap? There's no other way to
    overcome 32 bitness limits on a box that has much more than 32 bits worth
    of RAM, but to start mapping things in dynamically. So what's your point?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.020 / U:14.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site