[bind10-dev] more about cache (Re: cache effectiveness)

[Michal 'vorner' Vaner]

Hello

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:20:16AM -0800, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> In any case, I doubt the use of shared memory works as a silver
> bullet.  We'll then just suffer from interprocess synchronization
> problems instead of inter-thread ones.

There are no silver bullets, of course. The use of shared memory has the
advantage we need to synchronize only the shared part. We don't have to worry
about all the support libraries around, like libcc, libconfig, liblog. Are we
sure if they are thread safe, or at least reentrant?

With the shared part, I was hoping to use some kind of persistent data
structure, so we wouldn't delete/modify data under the hands of the readers. We
would just atomically switch the version to newer, and, once in a while, the
readers would say which version they are on already, which would allow us to
erase the older ones. But that's just vague idea.

With regards

-- 
"It can be done in C++" says nothing. "It can be done in C++ easily" says nobody.

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/attachments/20130306/d7ccb2ef/attachment.bin>