Re: hammer: MAP_32BIT

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> 
>>No, it requires 31-bit addresses, and there was a discussion about how
>>some things need 31-bit and some 32-bit addresses.
> 
> 
> That's completely irrelevant to my point.  Whether MAP_32BIT actually
> has a 31 bit limit or not doesn't matter, it's limited as well in the
> possible mmap blocks it can return.
> 
> The only thing I care about is to have a hint and not a fixed
> requirement for mmap().  All your proposals completely ignored this.
> 

Yes, but this is irrelevant to *MY* point... this discussion spawned a
side discussion, and somehow you're upset that it's not addressing your
concern but a different one... seems a bit ridiculous!

Anyway, I already posted that if we're adding MAP_MAXADDR we could also
add MAP_MAXADDR_ADVISORY or something similar to that.  On the other
hand, how big of a performance issue is it really to call mmap() again
in the failure scenario *only*?

	-hpa