[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac3eb2510911181340q51fb91dcy24ac2f14e2899a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:40:37 +0100
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: David Zeuthen <david@...ar.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Add support for uevents on block device idle
changes
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 22:33, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:06:33PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>> That's true, but I think there is a significant difference between
>> polling every one or two seconds for media changes, and usually one or
>> two minutes for a disk idle. It's not that we poll in a rather hight
>> frequency, in an arbitrary interval, and check if some condition is
>> met.
>
> My use cases are on the order of a second.
>
>> I still don't think that we should add new event interfaces which are
>> single-subscriber only, and use global values for a specific user.
>> What if there will be another independent user for this, which might
>> want a different timeout? They fight over the trigger value to set in
>> sysfs?
>
> You can trivially multiplex without any additional wakeups. Something
> like devkit-disks can simply trigger on the lowest requested time and
> then schedule wakeups for subscribers who want a different timeout.
No, it can't do this race-free. And it's far from trivial. It can not
know when something changes the single global value.
Kay
--
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