* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yeah, I could see that working. It doesn't solve the problems Ingo > > mentioned which are also important, though. > > Nothing I've yet seen would do that. Its intrinsic to the fact that we > want 'anonymous' text tied to a process instance but require part of > that text (symbol information at the very least) to be available after > the process instance. > > That are two contradictory requirements. You cannot preserve and not > preserve at the same time. > > And pushing the symbol info into the kernel isn't going to fix that > either. I fully agree with you in the JIT case. I was arguing the utilty of the original, somewhat limited usecase: minimally naming allocator areas/heaps, on a high level. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>