Subject: Re: kernel map entry merging and PR 24039
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/02/2004 15:22:22
> >> >i still think disabling entry merging (or, not to free memory for
> >> >merged entries, at least) is a "real" fix because it's a design flaw
> >> >to require memory allocation to free memory.
> >> you can call it a design flaw if you want to, but imho it's more of a
> >> flaw to consume more memory up front simply so that you don't have to
> >> allocate it later.
> >reserving memory for later use is a common practice.
> >it's far better than relying upon pure luck.
> reserving memory is fine.
> rampantly allocating map entries (which happens when merging is
> disabled) so that you'll never need to allocate a new one in order to
> free is not quite the same thing.
can you explain what's an important difference? thanks.