[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061124001412.371ec4e7.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:14:12 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
Johann Borck <johann.borck@...sedata.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [take25 1/6] kevent: Description.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:48:32 +0100
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> > The alternative is the sorry state we have now. In nscd, for instance,
> > we have one single thread waiting for incoming connections and it then
> > has to wake up a worker thread to handle the processing. This is done
> > because we cannot "park" all threads in the accept() call since when a
> > new connection is announced _all_ the threads are woken. With the new
> > event handling this wouldn't be the case, one thread only is woken and
> > we don't have to wake worker threads. All threads can be worker threads.
>
> Having one specialized thread handling the distribution of work to worker
> threads is better most of the time.
It might be now. Think "commodity 128-way". Your single distribution thread
will run out of steam.
What Ulrich is proposing is faster. This is a new interface. Let's design
it to be fast.
-
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