linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signalfd: retrieve multiple signals with one read() call

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 12:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Davi Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signalfd: retrieve multiple signals with one read() call

On Sat, 19 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Gathering signals in bulk enables server applications to drain a signal
> queue (almost full of realtime signals) more efficiently by reducing the
> syscall and file look-up overhead.
> 
> Very similar to the sigtimedwait4() call described by Niels Provos,
> Chuck Lever, and Stephen Tweedie in a paper entitled "Analyzing the
> Overload Behavior of a Simple Web Server". The paper lists more details
> and advantages.

That paper is a pre-epoll thing. Nowadays I see no value in using RT 
signals as main event gathering mechanism ;)


> Signed-off-by: Davi E. M. Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br>

The patch looks otherwise good to me, and I see no reasons why we 
shoulnd't be fetching more than one signal if available.

Acked-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>



- Davide


-
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/