Re: Thread implementations...

[Richard Gooch <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU>]

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....