[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: COPY_DELAY could perform worse than COPY_NONE
|
From: |
Richard Braun |
|
Subject: |
Re: COPY_DELAY could perform worse than COPY_NONE |
|
Date: |
Sat, 8 Oct 2011 14:23:56 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 01:55:42AM +0200, Sergio López wrote:
> Nowadays, the copy strategy is decided per-object, but I think the
> desired type of access to an object should also be considered. For
> instance, the operation generated by vm_copy should almost always use
> COPY_NONE, while vm_map, when doing things such as providing a private
> map, should use COPY_DELAY.
I really don't see why vm_copy() should use COPY_NONE. Could you explain
it briefly (sorry if I'm asking about something you may already have
described, but I feel it would be better with a clear, simple,
centralized explanation).
--
Richard Braun