[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A030287.8010104@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 18:47:19 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v4 2/2] kvm: add support for irqfd via eventfd-notification
interface
Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
>> What's your take on adding irq context safe callbacks to irqfd?
>>
>> To give some background here, we would like to use eventfd as a generic
>> connector between components, so the components do not know about each other.
>> So far eventfd successfully abstracts among components in the same process, in
>> different processes, and in the kernel.
>>
>> eventfd_signal() can be safely called from irq context, and will wake up a
>> waiting task. But in some cases, if the consumer is in the kernel, it may be
>> able to consume the event from irq context, saving a context switch.
>>
>> So, will you consider patches adding this capability to eventfd?
>>
>
> Maybe I got lost in the thread, but inside the kernel we have
> callback-based wakeup since long time. This is what epoll uses, when
> hooking into the file* f_op->poll() subsystem.
> Did you mean something else?
>
Do you mean wait_queue_t::func?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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