Re: mmap: is default non-populating behavior stable?

[Eugene V. Lyubimkin]

Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> Thanks to all for answers. I have made the conclusion that doing "open() new
>> file, truncate(<big size>), mmap(<the same big size>), write/read some memory
>> pages" should not populate other, untouched by write/read pages (until
>> MAP_POPULATE given), right?
[snip]
> For a start, it depends on the filesystem: I believe that vfat, for
> example, does not support the concept of sparse files (files with holes
> in), so its truncate(<big size>) will allocate the whole of that big
> size initially.
For my case vfat is not an option fortunately.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "populate": in mm, as in MAP_POPULATE,
> we're thinking of prefaulting pages into the user address space; but
> you're probably thinking of whether the blocks are allocated on disk?
Yes.

>>From time to time we toy with prefaulting adjacent pages when a fault
> occurs (though IIRC tests have proved disappointing in the past): we'd
> like to keep that option open, but it would go against your guidelines
> above to some extent.
It depends how is "adjacent" would count :) If several pages, probably not. If
millions or similar, that would be a problem. It's very convenient to use such
"open+truncate+mmap+write/read" behavior to make self-growing-on-demand cache
in memory with disk as back-end without remaps.

Thanks for descriptive answer.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature