[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [take25 1/6] kevent: Description.
    On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper ( wrote:
    > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
    > >uidx is an index, starting from which there are unread entries. It is
    > >updated by userspace when it commits entries, so it is 'consumer'
    > >pointer, while kidx is an index where kernel will put new entries, i.e.
    > >'producer' index. We definitely need them both.
    > >Userspace can only update (implicitly by calling kevent_commit()) uidx.
    > Right, which is why exporting this entry is not needed. Keep the
    > interface as small as possible.

    If there are several callers of kevent_commit(), uidx can be changed far
    than first user expects, so there should be possibility to check that
    value. It is thus exported into shared ring buffer structure.

    > Userlevel has to maintain its own index. Just assume kevent_wait
    > returns 10 new entries and you have multiple threads. In this case all
    > threads take their turns and pick an entry from the ring buffer. This
    > basically has to be done with something like this (I ignore wrap-arounds
    > here to simplify the example):
    > int getidx() {
    > while (uidx < kidx)
    > if (atomic_cmpxchg(uidx, uidx + 1, uidx) == 0)
    > return uidx;
    > return -1;
    > }
    > Very much simplified but it should show that we need a writable copy of
    > the uidx. And this value at any time must be consistent with the index
    > the kernel assumes.

    I seriously doubt it is simpler than having index provided by kernel.

    > The current ring_uidx value can at best be used to reinitialize the
    > userlevel uidx value after each kevent_wait call but this is unnecessary
    > at best (since uidx must already have this value) and racy in problem
    > cases (what if more than one thread gets woken concurrently with uidx
    > having the same value and one thread stores the uidx value and
    > immediately increments it to get an index; the second store would
    > overwrite the increment).
    > I can assure you that any implementation I write would not use the
    > ring_uidx value. Only trivial, single-threaded examples like you
    > ring_buffer.c could ever take advantage of this value. It's not worth it.

    You propose to make uidx shared local variable - it is doable, but it
    is not required - userspace can use kernel's variable, since it is
    updated exactly in the places where that index is changed.

    > --
    > ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View,
    > CA ❖
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
    > the body of a message to
    > More majordomo info at

    Evgeniy Polyakov
    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: 2006-11-24 12:51    [W:0.023 / U:30.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site