From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:15:26 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: [RFC] 2.3/4 VM queues idea Message-ID: <20000526141526.E10082@redhat.com> References: <200005242057.NAA77059@apollo.backplane.com> <20000525115202.A19969@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <200005251618.JAA82894@apollo.backplane.com> <20000525185059.A20563@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <20000526120805.C10082@redhat.com> <20000526132219.C21510@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20000526132219.C21510@pcep-jamie.cern.ch>; from lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk on Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:22:19PM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jamie Lokier Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Matthew Dillon , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Agreed. I looked at that code though and it seemed very... large. > I think COW address_space gets the same results with less code. Fast, too. > I know what I've got to do to prove it :-) How will it deal with fork() cases where the child starts mprotecting arbitrary regions, so that you have completely independent vmas all sharing the same private pages? --Stephen -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/