Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM

From: Jamie Lokier (jamie@shareable.org)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 20:33:45 EST


Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> so you agree it'd better be a separate syscall

Per-page protections might be workable just through mremap(). As you
say, it's just a matter of appropriate bits in the swap entry. To
userspace it is a transparent performance improvement.

Unfortunately without an appropriate bit in the pte too, that
restricts per-page protections to work only with shared mappings, or
anon mappings which have not been forked, due to the lack of COW. It
would still be a good optimisation, although it would be a shame if,
say, a GC implementation of malloc et al. (eg. Boehm's allocator)
would not be transparent over fork().

-- Jamie
-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:21 EST