Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:05:38 +0000 | From | Christopher Quinn <> | Subject | Re: Interprocess shared memory .... but file backed? |
| |
Mark Hahn wrote:
>>>well MAP_PRIVATE is "dont share" so not with that 8) >>>Use MAP_SHARED and you'll get what you want >>> >>Certainly true! But MAP_SHARED gives uncontrolled flush of >>dirty data - so that's out for me. I only want 'privacy' to >>extend to the right to make changes permanent at my own >>discretion. >> > > right, and that's not what Unix provides. in particular, mmap > is a means for apps to be polite, not for them to strongarm > the kernel. in particular, if you mmap a file, much of the point > is that the kernel chooses how much of the state is in ram or > on disk. you can, of course, msync, or even munmap. > > >
Seems a bit restrictive to me. After all Unix is not an ossified standard! :) Assuming clone() actually page table shares the vm covered by a mmap(MAP_PRIVATE) in the way I want, it isn't much to ask to be more *restrictive* on sharing?
So far, it's looking as if my ideal is unattainable with the current kernel. Anyone disagree?
-- rgrds, Chris Quinn
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |