Re: Thread implementations...
Richard Gooch (Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU)
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 13:53:36 +1000
Dean Gaudet writes:
>
>
> On 24 Jun 1998, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "RG" == Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> writes:
> >
> > RG> If we get madvise(2) right, we don't need sendfile(2), correct?
> >
> > It looks like it from here. As far as madvise goes, I think we need
> > to implement madvise(2) as:
>
> ... note that mmap() requires a bunch of kernel structures set up to map
> things into the program's memory space... when in reality the program
> doesn't care at all about the bytes. (And then there's process address
> space limitations...) sendfile() and such don't have these problems, and
> it may be far more simple to implement sendfile() than it would be to put
> all the hints and such into the mm layer to get mmap() performance up to
> the same level.
This may be true, but my point is that we *need* a decent madvise(2)
implementation. It will be use to a greater range of applications than
sendfile(2).
Regards,
Richard....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu