> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 13:53:36 +1000, Richard Gooch
> <Richard.Gooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> said:
>> This may be true, but my point is that we *need* a decent madvise(2)
>> implementation. It will be use to a greater range of applications than
>> sendfile(2).
> Not necessarily; we may be able to detect a lot of the relevant access
> patterns ourselves. Ingo has had a swap prediction algorithm for a
> while, and we talked at Usenix about a number of other things we can do
> to tune vm performance automatically. 2.3 ought to be a great deal
> better. madvise() may still have merit,
Definitely does. I have an app (at work) with a very large
tiled image file. The access pattern is something that the
OS is never going to guess, but with madvise on Solaris it
really flies. Performance without madvise would be (is!)
disastrous. There are simply cases where the app knows
better.
> but we really ought to be
> aiming at making the vm system as self-tuning as possible.
That too.
-- Erik Corry- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu