Hi Linus,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
> On 8 Dec 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> >
> > here is my first shot for cleaning up the shm handling. It did
> > survive some basic testing but is not ready for inclusion.
>
> The only comment I have right now is that you probably should not
> mark the page dirty in "nopage" - theoretically somebody might have
> a sparse mapping and depend on zero pages for the ones that aren't
> touched. It's better to delay the dirty marking until swapout() (and
> write(), when that is implemented), so that we don't needlessly
> create swap entries for zero pages.
OK. I simply copied that from shm.c without thinking. Actually I do
not yet understand the implications of it. (I never thought that I
would get so deeply involved into these issues and still struggle
often with the details)
> Other than that the approach at least looks reasonable. And cleaner
> than what we currently have.
Only reasonable? :-(
It's what I always thought would be the Right Thing (TM):
1) The mm layer should have the abilty to handle shared anonymous
pages
2) To access this we should use the 'everything is a file' mantra
which means shm fs
3) sysv shm should only care about handling shm ids (and it special
attributes which unfortunately makes shm_vm_operations necessary.)
So how would you improve it conceptually? And where are the
implementation flaws?
And compared to all the ipc/shm.c hacks we had so far it looks for me
beautiful. (And to make this clear: The main part is not my work. I
simply gathered the work of others to make this possible)
Christoph
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST