Hans
Chris Evans wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Erik Corry wrote:
>
> > Take a look at madvise for Solaris. You can say for a
> > mmaped area that you are going to read sequentially (do
> > lots of readahead), read randomly (do no readahead at all),
> > that you are going to need an area soon, or that you are
> > (probably) not going to need the area at all any more.
>
> I see no reason for an madvise() -- the kernel should be able to monitor
> faults and if they are sequential, decided for _itself_ that lots of
> readahead is a good idea. Calling madvise() is still incurring the
> overhead of a system call too.
>
> Chris
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu