lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Why shm fs (Was [2.3.51pre2] wrong shm_statfs in ipc/shm.c)
From
Date
Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Sounds exceedingly similar to the tmpfs idea (from Solaris) -- put /tmp
> in swap. Can you use shmfs in that way? I.e., just mount it on /tmp?

Yes it is like tmpfs. E.g. Solaris implements posix shm with tmpfs
like we do with shm fs.

But shm fs is also missing many features like directories, read/write
support for files, etc. So in the current state it is only usable for
shared memory. But it could be extended later. I am not sure if it
really makes sense. We have a very efficient cache and I once used a
RAM disk for /tmp and did not see a performance increase.

Greetings
Christoph

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.089 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site