Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:24:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Zera William Holladay <zholla1@uic.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel [memory] tweaking question Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0504070907040.18583@icarus.cc.uic.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050407083639.GD57256@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <42518AC9.5070208@comcast.net> <3.0.1.32.20050405052601.00ab4388@pop.redshift.com> <20050407083639.GD57256@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Peter Jeremy wrote: > These are all reasonably well documented in sys/conf/NOTES. If you > want more detail, try a SystemV-oriented Unix book > > Close - they only control SystemV shared memory. Sane shared memory > is available via mmap(2). SystemV semaphores are controlled via > SEMxxx options. Posix semaphores are listed as 'experimental'. Is there any chance that POSIX semaphores will be anything other than experimental in the future, or is there no interest? Further, the man page indicates that the FreeBSD, POSIX semaphore implementation is not capable of supporting multiple process semaphores. I saw a similar note on a Linux man page. I think this is a shame, since POSIX semaphores seem to be well designed (from a user point of view) compared to SYSV semaphores, which are a total mess. -Zera
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.58.0504070907040.18583>