Re: [PATCH/RFC] Shared page tables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Phillip Susi wrote:

Shouldn't those kind of applications already be using threads to share page tables rather than forking hundreds of processes that all mmap() the same file?

We're talking about sharing anonymous memory here, not files.

The feedback we've gotten on converting from a process-based to a thread-based model is that it's a major undertaking, when development and test expense is considered. It's understandable if one considers that they'd probably want to convert across on several operating systems at once to minimize the number of source trees they have to maintain.

Also, the case for conversion isn't helped by the fact that at least two prominent commercial UNIX flavors either inherently share page tables, or provide an explicit memory allocation mechanism that achieves page table sharing (e.g. Intimate Shared
Memory).

Cheers,
Brian

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux