[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <45C8F731.4070007@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:46:25 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@...il.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, zach.brown@...cle.com, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
suparna@...ibm.com, bcrl@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
David Miller a écrit :
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:28:34 -0800 (PST)
>
>> Yeah, in 1% of all cases it will block, and you'll want to wait for them.
>> Maybe the kevent queue works then, but if it needs any more setup than the
>> nonblocking case, that's a big no.
>
> So the idea is to just run it to completion if it won't block and use
> a fibril if it would?
>
> kevent could support something like that too.
It seems to me that kevent was designed to handle many events sources on a
single endpoint, like epoll (but with different internals). Typical load of
thousand of sockets/pipes providers glued into one queue.
In the fibril case, I guess a thread wont have many fibrils lying around...
Also, kevent needs a fd lookup/fput to retrieve some queued events, and that
may be a performance hit for the AIO case, (fget/fput in a multi-threaded
program cost some atomic ops)
-
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