Re: mmap behavior
- From: "David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Sep 2006 13:08:22 -0700
ochedru@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
This actually causes some trouble because my application relies on
vsize to perform some self-maintenance tasks.
With this fake 1GB overhead, this mechanism is broken.
On the contrary, the new behavior is superior to the old behavior. It
makes no sense for address space to be reserved without a corresponding
mapping.
Is there any workaround? Is there another way to reserve an address
space range for shared mappings?
Can you explain your outer problem. Why do you need somehing else to
reserve space for shared mappings? Why don't you just do it, by not
using the space you consider reserved?
Also, I could not find anything in /proc that would allow me to get the
"real" vsize.
You are getting the real vsize.
DS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: mmap behavior
- From: ochedru
- Re: mmap behavior
- References:
- mmap behavior
- From: ochedru
- Re: mmap behavior
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: mmap behavior
- From: ochedru
- mmap behavior
- Prev by Date: Looking for Embedded dev system
- Next by Date: Re: Proofreader for a technical article
- Previous by thread: Re: mmap behavior
- Next by thread: Re: mmap behavior
- Index(es):