linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

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:	Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:25:40 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling

On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 09:23:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The normal and most optimal workflow should be a user-space ring-buffer 
> of these constant-size struct async_syscall entries:
> 
>   struct async_syscall ringbuffer[1024];
> 
>   LIST_HEAD(submitted);
>   LIST_HEAD(pending);
>   LIST_HEAD(completed);

It's wrong to call this a ring buffer as things won't be completed in
any particular order. So you'll need a fourth list head for which
buffer elements are free. At which point, you might as well leave it
entirely up to the application to manage the allocation of
async_syscall structs. It may know it only needs two, or ten thousand,
or five per client...

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/