Re: [9fans] Privalloc(2) and rfork(RFPROC|RFMEM) (was: a pair nec bugs)

On 7 September 2015 at 01:30, erik quanstrom wrote: > unless by name an entry in a table shared by the set of memory sharing > processes is what is meant the table isn't shared. the address of the table is the same, but the underlying memory is private, and indeed can't

Re: [9fans] Privalloc(2) and rfork(RFPROC|RFMEM) (was: a pair nec bugs)

In any case, an implementation along the lines of tprivalloc seems ok, and passes my naive test program. #include #include static Lock privlock; static int privinit; static u32int privmap; extern void **_privates; extern int _nprivates; void ** privalloc(void) { void **p; int i; lock();

[9fans] irq latency

tl;dr: pcie access = latency it's interesting to take a look at irq latency for a number of devices on different machines. it looks like the experimental device --- the interrupt does nothing --- gives us a lower bound for irq latency, which works out to be 36ns (!). clearly this doesn't

Re: [9fans] irq latency

On Mon Sep 7 18:24:05 PDT 2015, quans...@quanstro.net wrote: > tl;dr: pcie access = latency speaking of latency, 9fans seems to have >6hr latency right now. - erik