On 4/21/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the Linux MADV_DONTNEED does throw away
data from a PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE mapping (or brk or stack) - those
changes are discarded, and a subsequent access will revert to zeroes
or the underlying mapped file. Been like that since before
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> Just for reference: the MADV_CURRENT behavior is to throw away data in
> the range.
Not exactly. The Linux MADV_DONTNEED never throws away data from a
PROT_WRITE,MAP_SHARED mapping (or shm) - it propagates the dirty bit,
the page will eventually
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Just for reference: the MADV_CURRENT behavior is to throw away data in
the range.
Not exactly. The Linux MADV_DONTNEED never throws away data from a
PROT_WRITE,MAP_SHARED mapping (or shm) - it propagates the dirty bit,
the page will eventually get
On 4/21/07, Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the Linux MADV_DONTNEED does throw away
data from a PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE mapping (or brk or stack) - those
changes are discarded, and a subsequent access will revert to zeroes
or the underlying mapped file. Been like that since before
On 4/20/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, we need to flesh this out a lot please. People often get confused
about what our MADV_DONTNEED behaviour is.
Well, there's not really much to flesh out. The current MADV_DONTNEED
is useful in some situations. The behavior cannot be
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:15:28 -0400
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Restore MADV_DONTNEED to its original Linux behaviour. This is still
> not the same behaviour as POSIX, but applications may be depending on
> the Linux behaviour already. Besides, glibc catches POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED
>
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:15:28 -0400
Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Restore MADV_DONTNEED to its original Linux behaviour. This is still
not the same behaviour as POSIX, but applications may be depending on
the Linux behaviour already. Besides, glibc catches POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED
and
On 4/20/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, we need to flesh this out a lot please. People often get confused
about what our MADV_DONTNEED behaviour is.
Well, there's not really much to flesh out. The current MADV_DONTNEED
is useful in some situations. The behavior cannot be
Restore MADV_DONTNEED to its original Linux behaviour. This is still
not the same behaviour as POSIX, but applications may be depending on
the Linux behaviour already. Besides, glibc catches POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED
and makes sure nothing is done...
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Restore MADV_DONTNEED to its original Linux behaviour. This is still
not the same behaviour as POSIX, but applications may be depending on
the Linux behaviour already. Besides, glibc catches POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED
and makes sure nothing is done...
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
10 matches
Mail list logo