[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:0.018 / U:2.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site