| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 01:08:26 -0700 From: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com> To: "Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com> Cc: "Davi Arnaut" <davi@...ent.com.br>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Davide Libenzi" <davidel@...ilserver.org>, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex On 5/2/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote: > Well, poll() level edge semantic is well defined, you cannot cheat or change it. > > If many threads call poll() on the same end point, they should *all* return POLLIN/whatever status. This means to me it's the wrong abstraction for this. We had a nice solution for this with Evgeniy's kevent interfaces. It worked without forcing futexes is this inflexible poll() interface. > This is why programs usually use one thread to dispatch events to workers, or at least dont queue XXXX threads calling poll() on one fd. No. This is why programs are forced to waste cycles by doing this. Ideally this would not happen. Ideally you'd park all worker thread in the same place and have them woken up one by one. Again, Evgeniy's code was able to do this. This approach seems to be a big step backward. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists