Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-25,: Re: Thread implementations...

# Re: Thread implementations...

Dean Gaudet (dgaudet-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org)
Wed, 24 Jun 1998 21:12:59 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Richard Gooch: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- Previous message: Joel Jaeggli: "RE: Y2K [OFFTOPIC]"
- Next in thread: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- Reply: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Thread implementations..."

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.

Dean

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: Richard Gooch: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- Previous message: Joel Jaeggli: "RE: Y2K [OFFTOPIC]"
- Next in thread: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- Reply: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Thread implementations..."