[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1154105089.19722.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:44:49 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.zummo@...ertech.it, jg@...edesktop.org
Subject: Re: A better interface, perhaps: a timed signal flag
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 17:41 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-07-28 am 10:52 -0400, ysgrifennodd Theodore Tso:
> > Good point, and limiting this facility to one such timeout per
> > task_struct seems like a reasonable restriction.
>
> Why is this any better than using a thread or signal handler ? From the
> implementation side its certainly horrible - we will be trying to write
> user pages from an IRQ event. Far better to let the existing thread code
> deal with it.
>
If the user page is special, in that it is really a kernel page mapped
to userspace. The implementation on making sure it doesn't disappear on
the interrupt isn't that difficult.
But for real-time applications, the signal handling has a huge latency.
Where as what Theodore wants to do is very light weight. ie. have a
high prio task doing smaller tasks until a specific time that tells it
to stop. Having a signal, would create the latency on having that task
stop.
These little requests make sense really only in the real-time space.
The normal uses can get by with signals. But I will say, the normal
uses for computing these days are starting to want the real-time
powers. :)
-- Steve
-
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