lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-03 00:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans