Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: signal queue resource - Posix timers | From | Ed L Cashin <> | Date | Thu, 29 May 2003 01:26:45 -0400 |
| |
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Jim Houston wrote: >> In the pre-allocated approach, the timer code would allocate a >> sigqueue structure as part of the timer_create. I would add new >> send_sigqueue() and send_group_sigqueue() which would accept the >> pointer to the pre-allocated sigqueue structure rather than a siginfo >> pointer. There would also be changes to the code which dequeues the >> siginfo structure to recognize these preallocated sigqueue structures. >> In the case of Posix timers using a preallocated siqueue entry also >> makes handling overruns easier. If the timer code finds that its >> sigqueue structure is still queued, it can simply increment the >> overrun count. >> The reservation approach would keep a pre-allocated pool of sigqueue >> structures and a reservation count. The timer_create would reserve >> a sigqueue entry which would be place in the pool until it is needed. >> I wonder if anyone else is interested in this problem. > > Well, I've never run into it and it sounds really obscure, but I agree > in principle that it's better to return an explicit error to userspace > than to silently fail, at least when it's feasible (obviously the kernel > can be beaten to death with events faster than it can deliver them, so > it won't always be feasible).
Why couldn't this be a configurable per-user thing like RSS rlimits?
-- --Ed L Cashin PGP public key: http://noserose.net/e/pgp/
- 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/
|  |