lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [take24 0/6] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:51:59 +0300
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 12:43:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) wrote:
> > > > >If thread calls kevent_wait() it means it has processed previous entries,
> > > > >one can call kevent_wait() with $num parameter as zero, which
> > > > >means that thread does not want any new events, so nothing will be
> > > > >copied.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't solve the problem. You could only request new events when
> > > > all previously reported events are processed. Plus: how do you report
> > > > events if the you don't allow get_event pass them on?
> > >
> > > Userspace should itself maintain order and possibility to get event in
> > > this implementation, kernel just returns events which were requested.
> >
> > That would mean that in a multithreaded application (or multi-processes
> > sharing the same MAP_SHARED ringbuffer), all threads/processes will be
> > slowed down to wait for the slowest one.
>
> Not at all - all other threads can call kevent_get_events() with theirs
> own place in the ring buffer, so while one of them is processing an
> entry, others can fill next entries.

eh? That's not a ringbuffer, and it sounds awfully complex.

I don't know if this (new?) proposal resolves the
events-gets-lost-due-to-thread-cancellation problem? Would need to see
considerably more detail.

-
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: 2006-11-20 10:21    [W:0.072 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site