lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [5]   [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 Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Zach Brown wrote:

    > > The normal and most optimal workflow should be a user-space ring-buffer
    > > of these constant-size struct async_syscall entries:
    > >
    > > struct async_syscall ringbuffer[1024];
    > >
    > > LIST_HEAD(submitted);
    > > LIST_HEAD(pending);
    > > LIST_HEAD(completed);
    >
    > I strongly disagree here, and I'm hoping you're not as keen on this now --
    > your reply to Matt gives me hope.
    >
    > As mentioned, that they complete out-of-order leads, at least, to having
    > separate submission and completion rings. I'm not sure a submission ring
    > makes any sense given the goal of processing the calls in submission and only
    > creating threads if it blocks. A simple copy of an array of these input
    > structs sounds fine to me.

    The "result" of one async operation is basically a cookie and a result
    code. Eight or sixteen bytes at most. IMO, before going wacko designing
    complex shared userspace-kernel result buffers, I think it'd be better
    measuring the worth-value of the thing ;)



    - 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: 2007-02-05 20:29    [W:0.021 / U:1.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site