From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:40:45 -0500 Message-ID: <878A2048A35CD141AD5FC92C6B776E4907BB98@xchgind02.nsisw.com> From: "Rob Fuller" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel , "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: One argument for reverse mappings is distributed shared memory or distributed file systems and their interaction with memory mapped files. For example, a distributed file system may need to invalidate a specific page of a file that may be mapped multiple times on a node. This may be a naive argument given my limited knowledge of Linux memory management internals. If so, I will refrain from posting this sort of thing in the future. Let me know. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rik van Riel [mailto:riel@conectiva.com.br] > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:13 AM > To: Eric W. Biederman > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org > Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 > > > On 17 Sep 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Do you have any arguments for the reverse mappings or just > for some of > > the other side effects that go along with them? > > Mainly for the side effects, but until somebody comes > up with another idea to achieve all the side effects I'm > not giving up on reverse mappings. If you can achieve > all the good stuff in another way, show it. -- 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/