On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 02:42:27PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> That's fair enough for the moment but relaxing would make ramfs
> potentially usable as a replacement for hugetlbfs so there would be just
> one ram-based filesystem instead of two.
Careful there. mmap() needs more than this.
(1) mapping->order is variable within an fs, so the architectural code
would need some vague awareness of the underlying page size
being variable unless the fs restricts it properly.
(2) by and large even large ptes are assumed to map a single object;
where mapping->order exceeds the next smallest TLB entry size
some potentially intricate machinations are required unless
mapping->order restriction is used to avoid it.
(3) a backward compatibility wrapper for expand-on-mmap() semantics
is needed, among other things.
(4) various odd hugetlb things like quotas are in there
(5) There are doubtless several oddities about SHM_HUGETLB to emulate
that would not be automatic when substituting such an extended
ramfs for hugetlbfs in ipc/shm.c
(6) ->get_unmapped_area() horrors.
The hugetlbfs fs stub has by and large been a huge embarrassment to me,
so I'd welcome the opportunity to foist off the vfs lifting onto ramfs.
I'd be happier with real superpages, but it's not my kernel.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
