[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Synchronous signal delivery..
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > And when that's done you have some nice bonuses:
> >
> > - All event types are reported equally fast, and in a single
> > system call (read()).
> >
> > - The order in which events occurred is preserved.
> > (This is lost when you have to scan multiple queues).
> >
> > - Hierarchies of event sets of any kind are possible.
> > (epoll has solved the logical problems of this already).
> >
> > - Less code duplicated.
> >
> > - Adding new kinds of kernel events becomes _very_ simple.
> Hmm ... using read() you'll lose the timeout capability, that IMHO is
> pretty nice.

Very good point.

Timeouts could be events too - probably a good idea as they can then
be absolute, relative, attached to different system clocks (monotonic
vs. timeofday). I think the POSIX timer work is like that.

It seems like a good idea to be able to attach one timeout event in
the same system call as the event_read call itself - because it is
_so_ common to vary the expiry time every time.

Then again, it is also extremely common to write this:

// calculate time until next application timer expires.
// Note also race condition here, if we're preempted.
read_events(..., next_app_time - timeofday)
// we need to know the current time.

So perhaps the current select/poll/epoll timeout method is not
particularly optimal as it is?

-- Jamie
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: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.073 / U:16.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site