Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes:
> Could you tell me what's wrong in having an app with a 1.5G mapped executable
> (or a tiny executable but with a 1.5G shared/private file mapping if you
> prefer),
O.K. that sound more reasonable. I was reading image as program
text... and a 1.5GB program text is a something I never have seen (and
hopefully will never see :-)
> 300M of shm (or 300M of anonymous memory if you prefer) and 200M as
> filesystem cache?
I don't really see a reason for fs cache in the application. I think
that parallel applications tend to either share mostly all or nothing,
but I may be wrong here.
> The application have a misc I/O load that in some part will run out
> of the working set, what's wrong with this?
>
> What's ridiculous? Please elaborate.
I think we fixed this misreading.
But still IMHO you underestimate the importance of shared memory for a
lot of applications in the high end. There is not only Oracle out
there and most of the shared memory is _not_ locked.
Greetings
Christoph
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:18 EST