From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 17:09:22 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: freemaps Message-ID: <20021216010922.GG2690@holomorphy.com> References: <3DFBF26B.47C04A6@digeo.com> <3DFC455E.1FD92CBC@digeo.com> <20021216005103.GF2690@holomorphy.com> <3DFD266A.422CB70C@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DFD266A.422CB70C@digeo.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Ingo Molnar , "Frederic Rossi (LMC)" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 01:03:26AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> - How does it play with non-linear mappings? William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> It doesn't care; they're just vma's parked on a virtual address range >> like the rest of them. On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 05:03:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > But the searching needs are different. If someone has a nonlinear mmap > of the 0-1M region of a file and then requests an mmap of the 4-5M region, > that can just be tacked onto the 0-1M mapping's vma (can't it?). Well, that's more of a merging criterion that a search criterion. At any rate, while it's true that they can/could be merged arbitrarily since they're not actually associated with any particular file offset range, there isn't any indicator I know of now that would actually allow this distinction wrt. mergeability to be made. Bill -- 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/