[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3f268590608280447s793f79fu8e6086cde1db8daf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:47:50 +0200
From: "Jari Sundell" <sundell.software@...il.com>
To: "Nicholas Miell" <nmiell@...cast.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...hat.com>,
"Evgeniy Polyakov" <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zach Brown" <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
"Chase Venters" <chase.venters@...entec.com>
Subject: Re: [take14 0/3] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
On 8/28/06, Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net> wrote:
> Also complicated is the case where waiting threads have different
> priorities, different timeouts, and different minimum event counts --
> how do you decide which thread gets events first? What if the decisions
> are different depending on whether you want to maximize throughput or
> interactivity?
BTW, what is the intended use of the min event count parameter? The
obvious reason I can see, avoiding waking up a thread too often with
few queued events, would imo be handled cleaner by just passing a
parameter telling the kernel to try to queue more events.
With a min event count you'd have to use a rather low timeout to
ensure that events get handled within a resonable time.
Rakshasa
-
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