Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:30:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:30:08 -0500 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:33700 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:29:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:29:53 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Momchil Velikov , Anton Blanchard , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , John Stoffel , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Radix-tree pagecache for 2.5 Message-ID: <20020201132953.A27508@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:06:37AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:06:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Even databases often use multiple files, and quite frankly, a database > that doesn't use mmap and doesn't try very hard to not cause extra system > calls is going to be bad performance-wise _regardless_ of any page cache > locking. I've always thought that read(2) and write(2) would in the end wind up faster than mmap(2)... Tests in my rewritten cp/rm/mv type utilities seem to bear this out. Is mmap(2) only preferred for large files/databases? Jeff - 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/