From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:21:13 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM Message-ID: <20030703222113.GS26348@holomorphy.com> References: <20030702222641.GU23578@dualathlon.random> <20030702231122.GI26348@holomorphy.com> <20030702233014.GW23578@dualathlon.random> <20030702235540.GK26348@holomorphy.com> <20030703113144.GY23578@dualathlon.random> <20030703114626.GP26348@holomorphy.com> <20030703125839.GZ23578@dualathlon.random> <20030703184825.GA17090@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030703185431.GQ26348@holomorphy.com> <20030703193328.GN23578@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030703193328.GN23578@dualathlon.random> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Jamie Lokier , "Martin J. Bligh" , Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I call that application #2. On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:33:28PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > maybe I'm missing something but protections have nothing to do with > remap_file_pages IMHO. That's all about teaching the swap code to > reserve more bits in the swap entry and to store the protections there > and possibly teaching the page fault not to get confused. It might > prefer to use the populate callback too to avoid specializing the > pte_none case, but I think the syscall should be different, and it > shouldn't have anything to do with the nonlinearity (nor with rmap). It's obvious what to do about protections. -- wli -- 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