Andrea Arcangeli [off-list ref] writes:

Could you tell me what's wrong in having an app with a 1.5G mapped executable
(or a tiny executable but with a 1.5G shared/private file mapping if you
prefer),

O.K. that sound more reasonable. I was reading image as program
text... and a 1.5GB program text is a something I never have seen (and
hopefully will never see :-)

300M of shm (or 300M of anonymous memory if you prefer) and 200M as
filesystem cache?

I don't really see a reason for fs cache in the application. I think
that parallel applications tend to either share mostly all or nothing,
but I may be wrong here.

The application have a misc I/O load that in some part will run out
of the working set, what's wrong with this?

What's ridiculous? Please elaborate.

I think we fixed this misreading. 

But still IMHO you underestimate the importance of shared memory for a
lot of applications in the high end. There is not only Oracle out
there and most of the shared memory is _not_ locked.

Greetings
		Christoph
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/