On Jun 12, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Connor Lane Smith <cls_AT_lubutu.com> wrote:
> On 12 June 2010 08:00, Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> The read operation can only fetch data the size of
>> half of the entire addressable memory space of a given machine in
>> one call
>
> Except it can actually fetch as much data as is addressable in memory
> in a single call, if the kernel and library are tailored to.
That's why mmap is for. Using read is just stupid.
>
>> which has no practical implications whatsoever.
>
> Except efficiency: the fewer system calls required to read the data
> the fewer mode switches required, and mode switches are very
> expensive.
>
Not really. Modern CPUs can do the context switching in very few
specific instructions. Which handled by hw, not sw as few years ago.
I find more annoying to have a proces running more time in kernel land
than having to do multiple syscalls.
In fact there's no practical reason to use a read() of 4GB in a shot.
>> But I'm frankly not interested in fluffy notions about the future,
>> because
>> they're irrelevant.
>
> I am interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going
> to spend the rest of our lives [1].
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xes0F36eTJA
>
No future. You shouldn't be typing programs that can only run in
hypothetical futurist hardware.
> cls
>
Received on Sat Jun 12 2010 - 10:53:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jun 12 2010 - 11:00:03 UTC