[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What would it take....
From: |
Da Zheng |
Subject: |
Re: What would it take.... |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:21:50 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) |
Hi,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Then must process-shared semaphores and mutexes be implemented in
>> shared memory? or it's completely through IPCs?
>
> Note that posix mutexes are always shared between processus through
> shared memory anyway (the application is responsible for sharing the
> memory). That can be used for fast locking (through atomics etc) and
> reverting to ports can be done only in the contention case.
>
> For semaphores, sem_init() behaves the same way. sem_open() is different
> in that it doesn't requires shared memory, but I'd advise to just
> automatically set up a shared memory segment and just work the same.
>
> Anyway, deciding between shared memory or pure IPC is not really an
> issue. I believe the more difficult part is how to make process
> actually perform IPCs securely. It can probably be useful to check how
> shm was implemented.
Do you mean shm device in Linux or in Xen?
Zheng Da
- Re: What would it take...., (continued)
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/22
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/22
Re: What would it take...., Samuel Thibault, 2009/12/22
Re: What would it take....,
Da Zheng <=
Re: What would it take...., Samuel Thibault, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Samuel Thibault, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Samuel Thibault, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Samuel Thibault, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Samuel Thibault, 2009/12/23
Re: What would it take...., Da Zheng, 2009/12/23