Author neologix
Recipients mrjbq7, neologix, pitrou, sbt
Date 2013-03-27.19:27:30
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAH_1eM3dge8=jWJadQbtHg_3sN2XiRe4-j98Z4X64E0dqFBQzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <5153420D.4040103@gmail.com>
Content
> Through fork, yes, but "shared" rather than "copy-on-write".

There's a subtlety: because of refcounting, just treating a COW object
as read-only (e.g. iteratin on the array) will trigger a copy
anyway...

> I assume you mean "shared memory" and shm_open(), not "semaphores" and
> sem_open().

Yes ;-)

>  I don't think shm_open() really has any advantages over
> using mmaps backed by "proper" files (since posix shared memeory uses up
> space in /dev/shm which is limited).

File-backed mmap() will incur disk I/O (although some of the data will
probably sit in the page cache), which would be much slower than a
shared memory. Also, you need corresponding disk space.
As for the /dev/shm limit, it's normally dimensioned according to the
amount of RAM, which is normally, which is in turn dimensioned
according to the working set.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-03-27 19:27:30neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, pitrou, mrjbq7, sbt
2013-03-27 19:27:30neologixlinkissue17560 messages
2013-03-27 19:27:30neologixcreate