Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 May 2003 15:07:59 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: hammer: MAP_32BIT |
| |
Ulrich Drepper wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > >>No, it requires 31-bit addresses, and there was a discussion about how >>some things need 31-bit and some 32-bit addresses. > > > That's completely irrelevant to my point. Whether MAP_32BIT actually > has a 31 bit limit or not doesn't matter, it's limited as well in the > possible mmap blocks it can return. > > The only thing I care about is to have a hint and not a fixed > requirement for mmap(). All your proposals completely ignored this. >
Yes, but this is irrelevant to *MY* point... this discussion spawned a side discussion, and somehow you're upset that it's not addressing your concern but a different one... seems a bit ridiculous!
Anyway, I already posted that if we're adding MAP_MAXADDR we could also add MAP_MAXADDR_ADVISORY or something similar to that. On the other hand, how big of a performance issue is it really to call mmap() again in the failure scenario *only*?
-hpa
- 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/
| |