[lkml]   [1998]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: What's wrong with MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS?
On Sun, Sep 27, 1998 at 04:10:02PM +0200, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> Hello!
> > These mappings have a big advantage over anonymous mappings too - you
> > can pass them around between processes using fd descriptor passing.
> How to prevent aggressive syncing dirty pages to disk for them?
> They should make swap-like syncs to be useful.

True, it would be worth a mprotect() flag.

What I would like to see in 2.3 would be a special device works that
hands out anonymous swap space associated with a fd
(something like a combination of /dev/zero and a SVR4 clone device)

With that POSIX shared memory could be implemented in user space -
using a daemon and access to the daemon's /proc/<pid>/fd/* files.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.073 / U:4.056 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site