-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy path00241.mbox
59 lines (54 loc) · 2.46 KB
/
00241.mbox
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
From [email protected] Tue Jul 16 10:09:19 2002
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se ([130.236.254.3])
by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17UT0x-0005pS-00
for <[email protected]>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:09:19 -0400
Received: from fafner.lysator.liu.se (fafner.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.31])
by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP
id E351383656A; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:09:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from nisse@localhost)
by fafner.lysator.liu.se (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA21417;
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:09:17 +0200 (MEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fafner.lysator.liu.se: nisse set sender to [email protected] using -f
Subject: Re: Message passing in user-land
References: <[email protected]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
From: [email protected] (Niels =?iso-8859-1?q?M=F6ller?=)
Date: 16 Jul 2002 16:09:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Lines: 17
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Errors-To: [email protected]
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd>,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Hurd <bug-hurd.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd>,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-hurd/>
[email protected] writes:
> But how much performance imprevement would we achieve if we created such
> a mechanism, only for pure data?
The fastest way to do it that I can imagine, for the simplest case of
mutually trusting processes, is to have a (possibly) short message
queue, protected by a mutex and some condition variables, all in th
eshared memory page. It's not obvious to me if that will be slower or
faster than L4 ipc that can pass the data in registers.
Furthermore, I have never implemented mutexes and condition variables,
but I wouldn't be surprised if some syscall is needed for conditions
to propagate between threads or processes.
Regards,
/Niels