Re: IDL issue - struct return vs. cap return

"Neal H. Walfield" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.hurd.l4
Message-ID <87r6nfxdc3.wl%[email protected]>
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:05:12 -0400,
Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Neal: if you have a proposal here, let me know. My main concern is that
> if we cannot efficiently deallocate capability locations, we're going to
> end up taking a lot of page faults.

I suspect that managing capabilities is similar to managing memory and
file descriptors.  In particular, you made the observation that
capability locations are likely to be widely referenced:

At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:28:30 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Hmm. Yes. I had not considered the possibility that the receiver might
> have to free capability slots explicitly. This seems very difficult to
> do correctly without GC, since the locations are likely to become widely
> referenced. From a management perspective, in the absence of GC, it
> seems to me that the stub is sitting in the wrong place to make good
> decisions about allocation strategy.

I suspect that this is not the case.  At least, I don't think they
will be more widely referenced than memory or file descriptors.  Thus,
for consistency, I think that whatever approach is taken for managing
these resources (whether that be GC or explicit allocation and
deallocation), should also be used for managing capabilities.

Neal
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.