Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:21:53 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] SMP alternatives |
| |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Yes. Any shared mmaps may require working lock.
Not "any". Only writable shared mmap. Which is actually the rare case.
Even then, we might want to have such processes have a way to say "I don't do futexes in this mmap" or similar. Quite often, writable shared mmaps aren't interested in locked cycles - they are there to just write things to disk, and all the serialization is done in the kernel when the user does a "munmap()" or a "msync()".
Linus - 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/
| |