Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:01:38 -0700 (PDT) | | Subject | Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files. | | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:56:59 -0700
> Even if we only have one syscall with a cmd multiplexer (which I'm not > thrilled with), we should at least make these arguments explicit in the > system call. It's weird to hide them in a struct. We could also think > about making them u32 or u64 so that we don't need compat wrappers, but > maybe that's overkill.
I think making the userspace data structure not require any compat handling is a must, thanks for pointing this out Zach.
> It'd be great if these struct members could get a prefix (ala: inode -> > i_, socket -> sk_) so that it's less painful getting tags helpers to > look up instances for us. Asking for 'lock' is hilarious.
Agreed.
> Hmm. I think the current preference is not to have a lock per bucket.
Yes, it loses badly, that's why we undid this in the routing cache and just have a fixed sized array of locks which is hashed into.
For kevents, I think a single spinlock initially is fine and if we hit performance problems on SMP we can fix it. We should not implement complexity we have no proof of needing yet :)
> > +#define KEVENT_MAX_REQUESTS PAGE_SIZE/sizeof(struct kevent) > > This is unused?
It is probably groundwork for the mmap() ring buffer... :)
- 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/
|  |