lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag
Hi Eric,

On 08/02/13 23:21, Eric Wong wrote:
> Martin Sustrik<sustrik@250bpm.com> wrote:
>> On 07/02/13 23:44, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> That's a nice changelog but it omitted a critical thing: why do you
>>> think the kernel needs this feature? What's the value and use case for
>>> being able to poll these descriptors?
>>
>> To address the question, I've written down detailed description of
>> the challenges of the network protocol development in user space and
>> how the proposed feature addresses the problems.
>>
>> It's too long to fit into ChangeLog, but it may be worth reading
>> when trying to judge the merit of the patch.
>>
>> It can be found here: http://www.250bpm.com/blog:16
>
> Using one eventfd per userspace socket still seems a bit wasteful.

Wasteful in what sense? Occupying a slot in file descriptor table?
That's the price for having the socket uniquely identified by the fd.

> Couldn't you use a single pipe for all sockets and write the efd_mask to
> the pipe for each socket?
>
> A read from the pipe would behave like epoll_wait.
>
> You might need to use one-shot semantics; but that's probably
> the easiest thing in multithreaded apps anyways.

Having multiple sockets represented by a single eventfd. how would you
distinguish where did individual events came from?

struct pollfd pfd;
...
poll (pfd, 1, -1);
if (pfd.revents & POLLIN) /* Incoming data on which socket? */
...

Martin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-09 04:21    [W:0.096 / U:1.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site