lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.087 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site