[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9

To: ebiederm@xmission.com
Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, phillips@bonn-fries.net,rfuller@nsisoftware.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <m1elp2g8vd.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <E15jnIB-0003gh-00@the-village.bc.nu><m1elp2g8vd.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org

   That I think is a significant cost.

My own personal feeling, after having tried to implement a much
lighter weight scheme involving "anon areas", is that reverse maps or
something similar should be looked at as a latch ditch effort.

We are tons faster than anyone else in fork/exec/exit precisely
because we keep track of so little state for anonymous pages.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
  - From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>

References:
- Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
  - From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
- Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
  - From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)

Prev by Date: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
Next by Date: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
Prev by thread: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
Next by thread: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread