[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Question] New mmap64 syscall?
On Sat 2016-12-10 10:10:01, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > > Most of these advantages should eventually go away, when struct-reorg makes
> > > it way into the compiler. That said, it’s a marginal (but real) improvement for a
> > > subset of SPEC.
> > >
> > > In the real world, the importance of ILP32 as an aid to transition legacy code
> > > that is not 64bit clean… and this should drive the ILP32 discussion. That we
> > > get a boost in our SPEC scores is just a nice extra that we get from it
> >
> > To bring this back from the philosophical questions of ABI design
> > to the specific point of what file offset width you want for mmap()
> > on 32-bit architectures.
> >
> > For all I can tell, using mmap() to access a file that is many thousand
> > times larger than your virtual address space is completely crazy.
> Dunno. Wanting to mmap part of a partition does not seem too crazy... I'm pretty
> sure there's some tool out there that uses mmap(), just because mmap() was nicer
> to use then read(). And when the partition is big, the offset may be big.

Actually, if I wrote something like jpegrecover, I'd use mmap() for that (because
otherwise I'd be keeping copy of disk in anonymous memory, increasing memory pressure).

jpegrecover definitely makes sense on partitions...

(cesky, pictures)

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-10 16:30    [W:0.062 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site