lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: What to expect with the 2.6 VM
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> so you agree it'd better be a separate syscall

Per-page protections might be workable just through mremap(). As you
say, it's just a matter of appropriate bits in the swap entry. To
userspace it is a transparent performance improvement.

Unfortunately without an appropriate bit in the pte too, that
restricts per-page protections to work only with shared mappings, or
anon mappings which have not been forked, due to the lack of COW. It
would still be a good optimisation, although it would be a shame if,
say, a GC implementation of malloc et al. (eg. Boehm's allocator)
would not be transparent over fork().

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans