apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <i...@cnet.com>
Subject Re: lock benchmarks on Solaris 8/sparc uniprocessor
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2001 02:52:12 GMT
Aaron Bannert wrote:

>On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 02:32:48PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>>Would it be prudent for APR to provide a shared-memory implementation of
>>posix mutexes? It seems to me that we don't have to rely on PROCESS_SHARED
>>being available on a particular platform if we handle our own shared
>>memory allocation. Are there any known caveats to this type of an
>>implementation?
>>
>
>Er, I'm smoking crack here or something. Of course we're already doing
>it this way, I just didn't notice before. *smack*
>
>Are there any differences between that and using a SysV shmem
>implementation? I'm a relative newbie when it comes to how portable
>subsystems like this are.
>
>-aaron
>
If you could implement a solaris-specific set of apr_shmem_* functions 
the shared-process locking
would make use of them. (ie .. replace 'mm' )

..Ian


Mime
View raw message