[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fw: Re: Busy-wait delay in qmail 1.03 after upgrading to Linux 2.6
    Haakon Riiser <> wrote:

    >What Qmail did was basically to use a named pipe as a trigger,
    >where one program select()s on the FIFO file descriptor, waiting
    >for another program to write() the FIFO. Once select() returns,
    >the listener close()s the FIFO (the data was not important,
    >it was only used as a signal), does some work, then re-open()s
    >the FIFO file, and ends up in the same select() waiting for the
    >whole thing to happen again.
    What drains the fifo?
    As far as I can see the fifo is filled by the write syscalls, and
    drained by chance if both the reader and the writer have closed their

    > for (;;) {
    > while ((fd = open("test.fifo", O_WRONLY | O_NONBLOCK)) < 0)
    > ;
    > gettimeofday(&tv1, NULL);
    > if (write(fd, &fd, 1) == 1) {
    xxx now a thread switch

    > gettimeofday(&tv2, NULL);
    > fprintf(stderr, "dt = %f ms\n",
    > (tv2.tv_sec - tv1.tv_sec) * 1000.0 +
    > (tv2.tv_usec - tv1.tv_usec) / 1000.0);
    > }
    > if (close(fd) < 0) {
    > perror("close");
    If a thread switch happens in the indicated line, then the reader will
    loop, until it's timeslice expires - one full timeslice delay between
    the two gettimeofday() calls.

    Running the reader with nice -20 resulted in delays of 200-1000 ms for
    each write call, nice 20 resulted in no slow calls. In both cases 100%
    cpu load.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.020 / U:2.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site