[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070226081655.GA25280@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:16:56 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
* Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> Also, the evtest_kevent_remove call is superfluous with epoll.
it's only used in the error path AFAICS.
but you are right about evserver_epoll/kevent.c incorrectly assuming
that things wont block in evtest_callback_client(), which, after
receiving the "there's stuff on the input socket" event does:
recvmsg(sock),
fd = open();
sendfile(sock, fd)
close(fd);
while evserver_threadlet.c, even this naive implementation, does not
assume that we wont block in that function.
> In any case, comparing epoll/kevent with 100K active sessions, against
> threadlets, is not exactly a fair/appropriate test for it.
fully agreed.
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