Re: What's wrong with MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS?

Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
Sun, 27 Sep 1998 16:33:27 +0200

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.

-Andi

-
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/