[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Kent Overstreet wrote:

> The trouble with differentiating between calls that block and calls
> that don't is you completely loose the ability to batch syscalls
> together; this is potentially a major win of an asynchronous
> interface.

It doesn't necessarly have to, once you extend the single return code to a

struct async_submit {
void *cookie;
int sysc_nbr;
int nargs;
long args[ASYNC_MAX_ARGS];
int async_result;

int async_submit(struct async_submit *a, int n);

And async_submit() can mark each one ->async_result with -EASYNC (syscall
has been batched), or another code (syscall completed w/out schedule).
IMO, once you get a -EASYNC for a syscall, you *have* to retire the result.

- Davide

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: 2007-02-07 00:27    [W:0.172 / U:9.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site