[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Implementation of POSIX shared memory objects
> yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> > > - Some support from kernel would still be needed, eg. hooks to create and
> > > unlink the object (note that object might stay with the data, even if
> > > there are no references i.e. it's removed only after shm_unlink).
> > >
> > > - While some management of objects could be in the userland, I do not
> > > really see the point in splitting some parts to userland and some to
> > > kernel. Now code is clean and in one place (and it could be a module
> > > anyway).
> > >
> > > Why? :)
> > less kernel code is better unless there are reasons.
> It does not seriously increase the complexity of existing code, could be
> made a module, and there are better ways to save the space (please see
> "Bloat" thread on this list).
> > afaik it can be implemented in userland using a directory. eg. /var/shm
> You mean implementing it in on a file-system?
> While permitted by POSIX,
> it would be significantly slower.
which operations are significantly slower? why?
> > YAMAMOTO Takashi
> Best regards,
Main Index |
Thread Index |