From: "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 11:39 PM
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > Bill's idea was to map and then unmap the individual sections of the > > file, so that no more than one section was mapped at a time. No, properly I implied that we have no more sections mapped than we are actually interested in, at any given time. > > If you > > do that, and you really unmap each section as you map the next, you > > will be thrashing your MMAPs. How? See my other post on why unmapping/remapping is really painless when weighed against reading, and pagefaulting. > > If you are really going to leave each > > section as an MMAP, then I would agree completely, and say let's do > > it, but that wasn't what Bill suggested. > > It might not be exactly what he said, but I thought it's what he _meant_. > Ahh, don't you love the expressiveness of email? :-) One at a time is > typically what you get with the code I posted anyhow since most filters > limit how much they'll buffer, but the one-at-a-time rule is just not > enforced. If it were enforced, then oh yeah, that would be bad. :) No, I really implied that we do unmap those that are consumed. If a really bad filter reads in all 200 buckets of 4MB each, then the system will start flailing. But no filter author would create such a design, no :-? If you read from the bucket (mmap) and pass it on, the memory footprint won't get out of hand. Bill
