You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am trying to use the hash table in a scenario where the hash table and its records are placed in a fixed size, pre-allocated chunk of shared memory accessed by multiple processes. Allocations in this chunk of shared memory would be managed by a custom allocator.
Adding a key-value pair to a hash table via WritableHashTable::Add causes WritableHashTable::CreateRecordBuffer to be called internally, which allocates a buffer of sufficient size. As far as I can see the allocation does not happen in the critical section of the Add method, thus the custom allocator mentioned above would have to take care of executing these allocations serially.
The README mentions a shared memory implementation, but it is unclear to me how far this shared memory implementation has progressed.
Am I missing something here or is making the custom allocator "multiprocess aware" the only option?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am trying to use the hash table in a scenario where the hash table and its records are placed in a fixed size, pre-allocated chunk of shared memory accessed by multiple processes. Allocations in this chunk of shared memory would be managed by a custom allocator.
Adding a key-value pair to a hash table via
WritableHashTable::Add
causesWritableHashTable::CreateRecordBuffer
to be called internally, which allocates a buffer of sufficient size. As far as I can see the allocation does not happen in the critical section of theAdd
method, thus the custom allocator mentioned above would have to take care of executing these allocations serially.The README mentions a shared memory implementation, but it is unclear to me how far this shared memory implementation has progressed.
Am I missing something here or is making the custom allocator "multiprocess aware" the only option?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: