Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:46:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: toor@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A question for the VM gurus..! Message-ID: <199605151746.MAA12362@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199605151714.MAA22723@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at May 15, 96 12:14:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Not portable. Solaris, at least, implements the madvise() stuff.. > > Okay.. > > > What it seems to do: > > > > If you set MADV_SEQUENTIAL on a region, if it has to fault a page "n" in, it > > looks like it discards all pages from 0 to n-1 in that region.. notably it > > does NOT seem to do anything if it doesn't have to fault a page in. > > Is there only one process accessing the region? What happens if there > are other processes using that region also? Otherwise, that is easy to > do in our VM system. Well, the situations under which I consider this to be useful might be where you are moving vast quantities of data in a linear fashion... so multiple processes accessing it _probably_ would not be an issue. As a larger issue, I don't know what the ramifications of mixing madvise()'s on a region - either in the same process or in different processes - should be. Maybe something to ponder for a while... Then again, maybe wise to remember that an application smart enough to provide "hints" as to optimal VM usage is probably smart enough to work out the side effects too. Maybe the VM implementation _should_ be relatively simplistic, so that the behavior can be predicted. ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605151746.MAA12362>