Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:16:21 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: objrmap and vmtruncate |
| |
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |