On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:20AM -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Depending on whether anyone wants it, and what features they want, we
> > could emulate the old syscall, and make a new restricted one which is
> > much less intrusive.
> > For example, if we can operate only on MAP_ANONYMOUS memory and specify
> > that nonlinear mappings effectively mlock the pages, then we can get
> > rid of all the objrmap and unmap_mapping_range handling, forget about
> > the writeout and msync problems...
> 
> Anonymous-only would make it a doorstop for Oracle, since its entire
> motive for using it is to window into objects larger than user virtual

Uh, duh yes I don't mean MAP_ANONYMOUS, I was just thinking of the shmem
inode that sits behind MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_SHARED. Of course if you don't
have a file descriptor to get a pgoff, then remap_file_pages is a doorstop
for everyone ;)

quoted text
> address spaces (this likely also applies to UML, though they should
> really chime in to confirm). Restrictions to tmpfs and/or ramfs would
> likely be liveable, though I suspect some things might want to do it to
> shm segments (I'll ask about that one). There's definitely no need for a
> persistent backing store for the object to be remapped in Oracle's case,
> in any event. It's largely the in-core destination and source of IO, not
> something saved on-disk itself.

Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML can live with
that as well, then I think it might be a good option.

-
unsubscribe notice
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/