Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:06:49 +0100 | From | "J . A . Magallon" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1 |
| |
On 02.02 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > "J . A . Magallon" wrote: > > > > On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote: > > > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes: > > > > > > > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory > > > > segments?! > > > > > > Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm > > > now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not link the > > > directory entry to the deleted state of the segment. > > > > > > > Mmmmmm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching... > > > > In some ways it's kind of sad. I found the /dev/shm interface to be > rather appealing :) >
I did not get the chance to deal too much with it, but apart from moving functionality from userspace (ipcs) to kernel (ls), what were/could be the benefits of /dev/shm ?. Can you create a shared memory segment by simply creating a file there, or it is just a picture of what is in kernelspace?.
First time I saw that I thought: what could happen if /dev/shm is shared in a cluster ? or, lets suppose that /dev/shm is a logical volume made by addition of some nfs mounted volumes, one of each node, so one piece of the shm fs is local and other remote...kinda DSM/NUMA...?
(just too much marijuana late at night...)
-- J.A. Magallon $> cd pub mailto:jamagallon@able.es $> more beer
Linux werewolf 2.4.1-ac1 #2 SMP Fri Feb 2 00:19:04 CET 2001 i686
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |