From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:58:18 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: Under what conditions are VMAs merged? Message-ID: <20011017215818.A2804@redhat.com> References: <3BCE20DF.6090103@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BCE20DF.6090103@zytor.com>; from hpa@zytor.com on Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:22:55PM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Linux MM mailing list , torvalds@transmeta.com List-ID: On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:22:55PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > In the checkpoint routine I thought doing an mprotect(PROT_READ) on the > entire region as a single system call would coalesce the VMAs, but > apparently that is not the case; after running my standard stress-test > application, /proc/pid/maps show 51635 mappings, most of them contiguous > and otherwise matching the surrounding mappings in every way; a dump of Only anonymous vmas are candidates for merging. Take it up with the head penguin. No merging at all is done for shared vmas. -ben -- 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/