[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607183044.GA1603@noexit.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:30:45 -0700
From: Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Oliver <david@...advisors.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>,
Zachary Vonler <zvonler@...advisors.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:11:38PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 10:53 -0700, Darren Hart a écrit :
> >
>
> > If I understand the problem correctly, RO private mapping really doesn't
> > make any sense and we should probably explicitly not support it, while
> > special casing the RO shared mapping in support of David's scenario.
> >
>
> We supported them in 2.6.18 kernels, apparently. This might sounds
> stupid but who knows ?
Trying to come up with a strawman for this sort of operation.
What about a process that creates a private mapping and then creates
threads with CLONE_VM? Would we CoW in that case?
Joel
--
Pitchers and catchers report.
http://www.jlbec.org/
jlbec@...lplan.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists