From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:17:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] Mapped File Policy Overview In-Reply-To: <1180040744.5327.110.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070524172821.13933.80093.sendpatchset@localhost> <200705242241.35373.ak@suse.de> <1180040744.5327.110.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nish.aravamudan@gmail.com List-ID: On Thu, 24 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Same use cases for using mbind() at all. I want to specify the > placement of memory backing any of my address space. A shared mapping > of a regular file is, IMO, morally equivalent to a shared memory region, > with the added semantic that is it automatically initialized from the > file contents, and any changes persist after the file is closed. [One > related semantic that Linux is missing is to initialize the shared > mapping from the file, but not writeback any changes--e.g., > MAP_NOWRITEBACK. Some "enterprise unix" support this, presumably at > ISV/customer request.] I think Andi was looking for an actual problem that is solved by this patchset. Any user feedback that triggered this solution? -- 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: email@kvack.org