At Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:39:54 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:02 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > > At Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:15:06 -0400, > > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > First, you have just multiplied the cost of any IPC involving a map > > > operation by four additional IPCs. In essence, you have reconstructed > > > the logic that had to be used to implement COPY on top of REVOCABLE > > > COPY, but you haven't yet covered all of the necessary advisory > > > messages. > > > > What RPCs? In your example, I see two base IPCs per B page fault: > > when B faults, the kernel sends an IPC to B' and B' installs the > > mapping by sending an IPC to B. > > I see five: > > A must advice A' that it plans to send a mapping to B so > that A' knows to support later recovery. This is an RPC > operation. It requires to IPCs. > > A now transmits to B: one IPC > > B must now advice B' of the existence of the mapping. > This is another RPC. It requires two IPCs
I think you are describing a possible protocol to establish *how* mappings can be reconstructed. The protocol I tried to describe was what happens *when* a mapping needs to be reconstructed. Thanks, Neal _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
