[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.
    From: Zach Brown <>
    Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:56:59 -0700

    > Even if we only have one syscall with a cmd multiplexer (which I'm not
    > thrilled with), we should at least make these arguments explicit in the
    > system call. It's weird to hide them in a struct. We could also think
    > about making them u32 or u64 so that we don't need compat wrappers, but
    > maybe that's overkill.

    I think making the userspace data structure not require any compat
    handling is a must, thanks for pointing this out Zach.

    > It'd be great if these struct members could get a prefix (ala: inode ->
    > i_, socket -> sk_) so that it's less painful getting tags helpers to
    > look up instances for us. Asking for 'lock' is hilarious.


    > Hmm. I think the current preference is not to have a lock per bucket.

    Yes, it loses badly, that's why we undid this in the routing cache
    and just have a fixed sized array of locks which is hashed into.

    For kevents, I think a single spinlock initially is fine and
    if we hit performance problems on SMP we can fix it. We should
    not implement complexity we have no proof of needing yet :)

    > > +#define KEVENT_MAX_REQUESTS PAGE_SIZE/sizeof(struct kevent)
    > This is unused?

    It is probably groundwork for the mmap() ring buffer... :)

    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: 2006-08-02 02:05    [W:0.032 / U:108.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site