[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!tag open_issue_gnumach]] # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-04-02 hi again, maybe someone has some metrics is mprotect / munprotect faster in hurd then in linux ? ? can i protected a memory page against write access in hurd and if so, is it a fast operation ? you can, I never measured, but it's probably the same cost as in linux I don't see why it would be different, as it boils down to the same x86 trick but i suppose it is part of the mach kernel doing the protection and not part of the unix layer ? it is the unix layer doesn't have mm control it has to ask the kernel it's slower on mach, as it's less optimized because of historical reasons but that's about it less optimized, how so? well, more entry fragmentation in the end you mark the page table and flush the tlb yes the high level virtual memory layer is a bit slower but fragmentation doesn't come into play it you just have one memory object, does it? it does, as it's about memory areas, not objects the object is merely a backing store protection, inheritance, copy on write are all area (vm_map_entry) attributes also, some operations affect all the address spaces where a physical page is mapped although i think linux does the same thing as mach/bsd now but mprotect/munprotect doesn't, does it? no or perhaps by side effect, in some situations, i'm not sure i think it depends if the memory is shared between processes, but i don't remember the details and can't think of a proper example right now but anyway, "slower" here is negligible unless address spaces are really huge and filled with lots of map entries psockali: why do you ask ? can i post a link here ? about what ? it's regarding azul / managed runtime initiative a GC for java why not although i don't see the point for now :) they have a custom MM management module for their GC as linux kernel modul and i was wondering if mach would be any faster then linux in that aspect http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3358545/whats-actually-in-the-managed-runtime-initiatives-kernel-patches-and-jvm psockali: generally speaking, mach is slower than linux because of its age and the fact it didn't receive as much attention and microoptimization as linux did psockali: about this article, there is no reason mach would be faster