[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Implementation of POSIX shared memory objects
On Fri Jul 31 2009 at 00:45:25 +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> > > Here is the implementation of POSIX shared memory objects:
> > >
> > > http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/shm_memobj.diff
You've removed the diff, making it a bit hard to warm my cache.
The following is based on what I remember.
> > > Please review.
> > why did you choose to implement it in kernel?
> After some thinking about this, I have few things to mention.
> For many cases, it makes sense to dump this complexity out from the kernel,
> and use file-system layer (with eg. tmpfs). However:
> - It could not provide determinism for real-time systems.
How do your memobjs provide determism? IIRC they were pageable memory.
What's the difference between mlocking file system pages and mlocking
> - It would have significant overhead for embedded systems. High bandwidth and
> performance is a requirement for POSIX shared memory.
How is writing to memory slower than writing to memory?
> - Similar bits of kernel functionality (and therefore some complexity) might
> be needed if we plan to support POSIX typed memory objects.
I don't know about others, but for me this kind of speculative premature
"optimization" is a red alert for not taking that route now.
Main Index |
Thread Index |