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 _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
