Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:37:09 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling |
| |
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> in fact an app could also /trigger/ the execution of a syscall in a > different context - to create parallelism artificially - without any > blocking event. So we could do: > > cookie1 = sys_async(sys_read, params); > cookie2 = sys_async(sys_write, params); > > [ ... calculation loop ... ] > > wait_on_async_syscall(cookie1); > wait_on_async_syscall(cookie2); > > or something like that. Without user-space having to create threads > itself, etc. So basically, we'd make kernel threads more useful, and > we'd make threading safer - by only letting syscalls thread.
Since I still think that the many-thousands potential async operations coming from network sockets are better handled with a classical event machanism [1], and since smooth integration of new async syscall into the standard POSIX infrastructure is IMO a huge win, I think we need to have a "bridge" to allow async completions being detectable through a pollable (by the mean of select/poll/epoll whatever) device. In that way you can handle async operations with the best mechanism that is fit for them, and gather them in a single async scheduler.
[1] Unless you really want to have thousands of kthreads/fibrils lingering on the system.
- 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/
| |