Re: mmaping on plan9? (was Re: [9fans] venti /plan9port mmapped

[wb.kloke@gmail.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1238 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 7 January 2026, at 10:31 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> what we had planned for harvey was a good deal simpler: designate a part of the address space as a "bounce fault to user" space area. 
> 
> When a page fault in that area occurred, info about the fault was sent to an fd (if  it was opened) or a note handler.
> 
> user could could handle the fault or punt, as it saw fit. The fixup was that user mode had to get the data to satisfy the fault, then tell the kernel what to do.
> 
> This is much like the 35-years-ago work we did on AIX, called external pagers at the time; or the more recent umap work, https://computing.llnl.gov/projects/umap, used fairly widely in HPC. 
> 
> If you go this route, it's a bit less complex than what you are proposing.

Thank you, this seems the nearest possible answer to my original question. The bad about umap is, of course, that it depends on a linuxism.

BTW. Harvey is gone. Is the work done to crosscompile for plan9 on gcc accessible?
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Te8d7c6e48b5c075b-M11a11204a789ee5dac250c3a
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2084 bytes --]