How would we handle mmap in the generic case?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
discussion
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 2.7k
- Forks
- 144
- Avg merge
- 12h 21m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 146
Description
@wdcui had a good point, `mmap` (especially for loading) is a cross-cutting concern that seemingly acts against some of the layering discipline.
As a temporary approach, we decided to simply eat the cost of a memcpy for the few cases where we need it, but we might want to give some more thought into this. Linux FUSE might give some insights.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Start by tracing the few loading cases that currently pay for a memcpy and review how Linux FUSE might inform the layering concern. Done would require a decided generic approach to mmap rather than only the temporary memcpy workaround.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- linux, rust
- Domain
- operating-systems, performance
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100