[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.2.19pre2
    Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > The fact you could mix non-exclusive and exlusive wakeups in the same waitqueue
    > was a feature not a misfeature. Then of course you cannot register in two
    > waitqueues one with wake-one and one with wake-all but who does that anyways?
    > Definitely not an issue for 2.2.x.

    Definitely? Let's think about that.

    > I think the real reason for spearating the two things as davem proposed is
    > because otherwise we cannot register for a LIFO wake-one in O(1) as we needed
    > for accept.

    Yes. In other words, if we try to do O(1) LIFO, we can cause lost wakeups.

    > Other thing about your patch, adding TASK_EXCLUSIVE to
    > wake_up/wake_up_interruptible is useless.

    This enables wake_up_all().

    Anyway, this is all just noise.

    The key question is: which of the following do we want?

    a) A simple, specific accept()-accelerator, and 2.2 remains without
    an exclusive wq API or

    b) A general purpose exclusive wq mechanism which does not correctly
    support waiting on two queues simultaneuously where one is
    exclusive or

    c) A general purpose exclusive wq mechanism which _does_ support it.

    Each choice has merit! You seem to want b). davem wants c).

    And given that 2.2 has maybe 2-4 years life left in it, I'd
    agree with David. Let's do it once and do it right while the issue
    is fresh in our minds.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.021 / U:4.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site