Re: Possible shared mapping bug in 2.4.23 (at least MIPS/Sparc)

From: Jamie Lokier (jamie_at_shareable.org)
Date: 12/14/03

  • Next message: Larry McVoy: "RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper" 
    Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:16:37 +0000
To: Peter Horton <pdh@colonel-panic.org>

    Peter Horton wrote:
    > I've seen code written for X86 use MAP_FIXED to create self wrapping
    > ring buffers. Surely it's better to fail the mmap() on other archs
    > rather than for the code to fail in unexpected ways?

    Such code should test the buffers or just not create ring buffers on
    architectures it doesn't know about. (You can usually simulate them
    by copying data). On some architectures there is _no_ alignment which
    works, and even on x86 aligning aliases to 32k results in faster
    memory accesses on some chips (AMD ones).

    Also, sometimes a self wrapping ring buffer can work even when the
    separation isn't coherent, provided the code using it forces cache
    line flushes at the appropriate points.

    -- Jamie
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Larry McVoy: "RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper"

    Relevant Pages