[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100903142432.GG19353@squeeze>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:24:32 +0300
From: Pauli Nieminen <ext-pauli.nieminen@...ia.com>
To: ext Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: ext Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jhnikula@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pauli <suokkos@...il.com>
Subject: Re: IPC between application and xserver is causing extra context
switches
On 03/09/10 09:31 +0200, ext Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 10:17 +0300, Pauli Nieminen wrote:
> > Scheduling at write is wrong because xserver doesn't know about client
> > priorities.
>
> Waking up the client at write is correct because you don't know if there
> is more to be written.
>
IMO xserver is already signaling kernel when there is nothing more to write.
There is nothing more to write when xserver calls select after processing
request and writing responses.
O_NONBLOCK is set for file descriptors if it matters.
syscalls will be:
select(all_fds);
read(2, ...);
read(5, ...);
writev(3, ...);
writev(5, ...);
writev(6, ...);
select(all_fds);
Of course this is a lot simplified what really happens.
--
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