From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: objrmap and vmtruncate From: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <72740000.1049599406@[10.10.2.4]> References: <20030404163154.77f19d9e.akpm@digeo.com> <12880000.1049508832@flay><20030405024414.GP16293@dualathlon.random> <20030404192401.03292293.akpm@digeo.com> <20030405040614.66511e1e.akpm@digeo.com> <72740000.1049599406@[10.10.2.4]> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1049640548.962.10.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 06 Apr 2003 15:49:08 +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Andrew Morton , andrea@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, hugh@veritas.com, dmccr@us.ibm.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sul, 2003-04-06 at 03:23, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > 14.91s user 75.30s system 24% cpu 6:15.84 total > > Isn't the intent to use sys_remap_file_pages for these sort of workloads > anyway? In which case partial objrmap = rmap for these tests, so we're > still OK? What matters is the worst case not the best case. Users will do non optimal things on a regular basis. -- 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org