lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5)
Date
I am just joining your discussion today for the fist time.  I come from
a Windows implementation of async I/O, so please don't hold it against
me. I can't say that I am following 100% percent, but I think you guys
are talking about what the user API will look like, correct?

Assuming the answer is yes. Here are my two cents. The code you have
below seems a bit awkward -- the line while(do_io(fd) != EAGAIN) appears
twice. I think the reason for that is that you're trying to do too many
things at once, namely, you're trying to handle both the initial
accept/setup of the socket and its steady state servicing. I don't see
any benefit to that -- it definitely doesn't make for cleaner code. Why
not do things separately.
1. Have a setup phase which more or less does:

* listen()
* accept()
* add the new fd/socket to an "event" which all the worker threads are
waiting on.

2. Have the worker tread/steady state operation be:

* event_wait() which returns the fd, some descriptor of what exactly
happened (read/write), the number of bytes transferred.
* based upon the return from event wait the user updates his state, and
posts the next operation (read/write).

Thanks,

Tervel Atanassov

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org [mailto:owner-linux-aio@kvack.org] On
Behalf Of John Myers
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Charles 'Buck' Krasic
Cc: Davide Libenzi; Benjamin LaHaise; Dan Kegel; Shailabh Nagar;
linux-kernel; linux-aio; Andrew Morton; David Miller; Linus Torvalds;
Stephen Tweedie
Subject: Re: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5)
Charles 'Buck' Krasic wrote:

>Or we could have (to make John happier?):
>
>1 for(;;) {
>2 fd = event_wait(...);
>3 if(fd == my_listen_fd) {
>4 /* new connections */
>5 while((new_fd = my_accept(my_listen_fd, ...) != EAGAIN)) {
>6* epoll_addf(new_fd, &pfd, ...);
>7* if(pfd.revents & POLLIN) {
>7* while(do_io(new_fd) != EAGAIN);
>8* }
>8 }
>9 } else {
>10 /* established connections */
>11 while(do_io(fd) != EAGAIN)
>12 }
>13 }
>
>
Close. What we would have is a modification of the epoll_addf()
semantics such that it would have an additional postcondition that if
the new_fd is in the ready state (has data available) then at least one
notification has been generated. In the code above, the three lines
comprising the if statement labeled "7*" would be removed.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO,
see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site