From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:16:21 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: objrmap and vmtruncate Message-ID: <20030422151621.GJ23320@dualathlon.random> References: <170570000.1051021741@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <170570000.1051021741@[10.10.2.4]> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, hugh@veritas.com, dmccr@us.ibm.com, Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:29:02AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > overhead itself. I think we're optimising for the wrong case here - isn't > the 100x100 mappings case exactly what we have sys_remap_file_pages for? yes IMHO. > We can make the O(?) stuff look as fancy as we like. However, in reality, > that makes the constants suck, and I'm not at all sure it's a good plan. correct, it depends on what we care to run fast. > It seems ironic that the solution to space consumption is do double the > amount of space taken ;-) I see what you're trying to do (shove things up Agreed. > I think the holes in objrmap are quite small - and are already addressed by > your sys_remap_file_pages mechanism. Yep. Andrea -- 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