From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:20:26 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [rfc][api] Shared Memory Binding Message-ID: <20030211212026.A21174@infradead.org> References: <3E49635A.70906@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E49635A.70906@us.ibm.com>; from colpatch@us.ibm.com on Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:55:54PM -0800 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Matthew Dobson Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Michael Hohnbaum , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:55:54PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote: > Hello All, > I've got a pseudo manpage for a new call I'm attempting to implement: > shmbind(). The idea of the call is to allow userspace processes to bind > shared memory segments to particular nodes' memory and do so according > to certain policies. Processes would call shmget() as usual, but before > calling shmat(), the process could call shmbind() to set up a binding > for the segment. Then, any time pages from the shared segment are > faulted into memory, it would be done according to this binding. > Any comments about the attatched manpage, the idea in general, how to > improve it, etc. are definitely welcome. Do we really need to add more mess to the broken sysvipc interfaces? I think an shm_open_on_node call for posix-style shm would be a much better idea. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/