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    [W:0.021 / U:32.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site