lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [test patch] dirty shared mappings


Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
> >
> > Personally, I think we should just forget about the abomination unless
> > somebody comes up with something that makes it really simple and doesn't
> > impact the rest of the memory management code negatively. Almost nobody
> > really uses shared anonymous mappings - and I think the people who do are
> > seriously misguided.
> >
> Isn't an anonymous shared mapping basically the same as a SysV shared
> memory block whose key has been deleted?

Really? I thought the standard UNIX shared memory definition was more like
a shared memory block that has a public key (ie I thought _everybody_ got
the shared memory area, not just children).

If Matthias is right, then the traditional UNIX shared memory isn't as
much of an abomination as I thought. I've obviously never used it, can
somebody set me straight (or test it out)?

If this is the case, then it cannot be done with just a single shared
memory backing store anyway, and it really needs the kind of support that
the current shmem code already does (so I could just make a anonymous
shared mapping turn into a shmem block internally - fairly easy).

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.018 / U:1.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site