Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 May 2007 10:49:36 +0200 | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Subject | Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex |
| |
On Wed, 2 May 2007 01:08:26 -0700 "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote: > > Well, poll() level edge semantic is well defined, you cannot cheat or change it. > > > > If many threads call poll() on the same end point, they should *all* return POLLIN/whatever status. > > This means to me it's the wrong abstraction for this. We had a nice > solution for this with Evgeniy's kevent interfaces. It worked without > forcing futexes is this inflexible poll() interface.
poll() is a generalist interface. Not the *perfect* one, but well spreaded on other OS as well.
> > > > > This is why programs usually use one thread to dispatch events to workers, or at least dont queue XXXX threads calling poll() on one fd. > > No. This is why programs are forced to waste cycles by doing this. > Ideally this would not happen. Ideally you'd park all worker thread > in the same place and have them woken up one by one. Again, Evgeniy's > code was able to do this. This approach seems to be a big step > backward.
I understand your concerns, but *this* patch bundle extends poll()/select()/epoll, and is not an alternative to kevent or other work in progress, (and linux centered)
Are you suggesting poll() system call should be deprecated ?
Most programs still use the archaic select() thing you know ...
- 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/
| |