4 ms·
Presumably, if this were to catch on, it would start in toy projects and projects with a major usability advantage, where the performance loss is acceptable, an
by gizmo686 12y ago
Presumably, if this were to catch on, it would start in toy projects and projects with a major usability advantage, where the performance loss is acceptable, and as a secondary means of using other programs. Then, we might see optimizations to make the performance of this method not horrible.
In concept, it should be relatively simple to recognize where a FUSE filesystem is mounting another FUSE filesystem and bypass the kernel to let the two processes talk directly to each other. You still have the problem that any operation would need to travel through N processes. You might be able to improve on this with a mechanism for a filesystem to say "I have to effect on operation X" and have it be bypassed when X occurs.
- ekimekim 12y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I would've assumed that most methods of IPC (unix sockets, pipes...everything except shared memory) would need to be copied into kernel space (via a write(2) then copied back out (via a read(2)) at some point. Are you suggesting that FUSE add a mechanism to open some shared memory communication path between FUSE processes?