On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 05:55 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> Looking at the Plan 9 exec path it's hard to see a reason that Plan 9
> could not do mmap, it just doesn't. But lots of code nowadays depends
> on mmap being there. Is there something I'm missing?
I've commented privately to Erik that this is, in fact, what I'm
interested in: using mmap() not as a first-class abstraction,
but as a useful optimization technique in places where it can
speed things up.
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. Of course, as was pointed out
(a) speeding things up in one place (read/write) could easily
slow them down elsewhere in the kernel
(b) there's no point in lots of RPMs if 99% you're in neutral
and (a) is precisely why I tend to ask question instead
of implementing this stuff up -- I'm just not all that much
of an OS kernel guy to be 100% sure that it will end up
being worth it.
