> Hi Gleb, > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> design would still be broken, no? Did you try using (or extending) > >> posix_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) for the guest address space? It seems to > > After mlockall() I can't even allocate guest address space. Or do you mean > > instead of mlockall()? Then how MADV_DONTNEED will help? It just drops > > page table for the address range (which is not what I need) and does not > > have any long time effect. > > Oh right, MADV_DONTNEED is no good. Off topic: posix_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is nop. glibc's posix_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) don't call linux's madvise(MADV_DONTNEED). It's because madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is not POSIX compliant. The behavior of linux madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is similar to Solaris (or *BSD) madvise(MADV_FREE). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
