[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F09B78.7000403@novell.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:46:48 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
avi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH 2/3] eventfd: add a notifier mechanism
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>
>> This allows synchronous notifications to register with the eventfd
>> infrastructure. Unlike traditional vfs based eventfd readers, notifiees
>> do not implictly clear the counter on reception. However, the clearing
>> is primarily important to allowing threads to block waiting for events
>> anyway, so its an acceptable trade-off since blocking doesn't apply to
>> notifiers.
>>
>
> Do you really need to add a notifier? Eventfd already has a wait queue,
> and we support callback-based wakeups, so is there any reason we shouldn't
> use those and rely on the already existing wakeups?
>
Well, IIUC the issue is that a wait queue implies that you are in fact
waiting...which we may not. :)
The target in this particular application with kvm-irqfd is a vcpu
context, which *may* be sleeping in something like a HLT, but it also
could be in a number of other states such as non-root (guest) mode, it
could be running in the kernel, it could be up in userspace, etc.
That said: I am not married to the concept that this has to be a
notifier callback, but I do want to be able to meet the target
application. So if there is some way to do that within the existing
wait-queue contstruct, I am open to suggestions.
Thanks Davide,
-Greg
>
>
> - Davide
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (267 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists