lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] ppc64: SPU file system
    Date
    On Sünndag 15 Mai 2005 08:29, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
    > Why not just write(pc) to start and read back status from the same
    > file ?

    I suppose you are thinking of the simple_transaction_read() style
    interface. I've got the feeling that this is generally even
    less popular than ioctl because

    - it is still an untyped interface (as would be a read() based one)
    - you can't do 32 bit emulation (doesn't matter for me, we only
    have 32 bit data)
    - it is non-atomic
    - it doubles the system call overhead

    One operation that I want to allow is to have an infinite loop
    running on the SPU that does a simple operation (e.g. process
    one MPEG macroblock) and have that called by multiple unrelated
    processes in turns. When my operation is not atomic, users need
    to have additional IPC serialization of their accesses. Most
    would want that anyway, but it is not a requirement with an
    interface that needs only a single system call.

    For the extra syscall overhead, I would like to see measurements
    of a real world application before I change to an interface that
    is slower in theory. Do you have measurements for the time spent
    in a trivial system call on G5 or Power4?

    Arnd <><
    -
    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: 2005-05-15 12:28    [W:0.022 / U:30.908 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site