From: Patrick S. <sbc...@nk...> - 2008-06-02 14:56:32
|
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Patrick Stein <sbc...@nk...> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Nikodemus Siivola > <nik...@ra...> wrote: >> My mmap suspicions are centered getting the memory at the wrong >> address (but having mmap lie about it), or getting MAP_SHARED even >> when we ask for MAP_PRIVATE. So, I like the MAP_SHARED theory... but I don't like the wrong address theory. I can't form a useful hypothesis about why it would lie to all but one of the procs in this scenario. I would expect to it to either lie to all of them or just some percentage of them. But, it would have to be lying to n-1 of them. And, I can't think of how it could manage that. ttyl, Patrick |