lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Collapsing RT signals ...

    On 25-Jun-2001 Dan Kegel wrote:
    > Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
    >> I'm making some test with RT signals and looking at how they're implemented
    >> inside the kernel.
    >> After having experienced frequent queue overflow signals I looked at how
    >> signals are queued inside the task_struct.
    >> There's no signals optimization inside and this make the queue length
    >> depending
    >> on the request rate instead of the number of connections.
    >> It can happen that two ( or more ) POLL_IN signals are queued with a single
    >> read() that sweep the buffer leaving other signals to issue reads ( read
    >> this
    >> as user-mode / kernel-mode switch ) that will fail due lack of data.
    >> So for every "superfluous" signal we'll have two user-mode / kernel-mode
    >> switches, one for signal delivery and one for a failing read().
    >> I'm just thinking at a way to optimize the signal delivery that is ( draft )
    >> :
    >> ...
    >
    > I agree, the queue overflow case is a pain in the butt.
    >
    > Before you get too far coding up your idea, have you read
    > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99023775430848&w=2

    Double thank You Dan, they did exactly what I want to do :)




    - Davide

    -
    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: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:7.481 / U:0.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site