Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:00:23 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Coalescing pipe allocation Message-ID: <xzpwu745c9k.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040203115210.79056E-100000@fledge.watson.org> (Robert Watson's message of "Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:54:11 -0500 (EST)") References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040203115210.79056E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes: > Well, I don't know so much about the portability issues, but I can say > that it seems silly to incur the costs if few applications take advantage > of the feature. Especially if the cost can be defered until the feature > is exercised. I have some local patches that defer all pipe buffer > allocation until a particular direction is first used, but this has some > potential downsides, including increasing the chances that a lack of > resources is discovered on first-use, rather than on allocation of the > pipe (which makes it a lot harder to write robust applications). This is IMHO a lesser evil than the current behaviour, and there is always the option of blocking if memory can't be allocated right away. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpwu745c9k.fsf>