[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070222152904.GA17799@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:29:04 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: johnpol@....mipt.ru, arjan@...radead.org, drepper@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
hch@...radead.org, akpm@....com.au, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
zach.brown@...cle.com, suparna@...ibm.com, davidel@...ilserver.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > The pushback to the primary thread you speak of is just extra work
> > in my mind, for networking. Better to just begin operations and sit
> > in the primary thread(s) waiting for events, and when they arrive
> > push the operations further along using non-blocking writes, reads,
> > and accept() calls. There is no blocking context really needed for
> > these kinds of things, so a mechanism that tries to provide one is a
> > waste.
>
> one question is, what is cheaper, to block out of a read and a write and
^-------to back out
> to set up the event notification and then to return to the user
> context, or to just stay right in there with all the context already
> constructed and on the stack, and schedule away and then come back and
> queue back to the primary thread once the condition the thread is
> waiting for is done? The latter isnt all that unattractive in my mind,
> because it always does forward progress, with minimal 'backout' costs.
Ingo
-
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