[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120709184539.GI7275@edge.cmeerw.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:45:39 +0200
From: Christof Meerwald <cmeerw@...erw.org>
To: "Paton J. Lewis" <palewis@...be.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Holland <pholland@...be.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: Improved support for multi-threaded clients
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 02:43:06PM -0700, Paton J. Lewis wrote:
> At 6/19/2012 11:17 AM, Christof Meerwald wrote:
> >But, taking one step back - wouldn't an alternative approach be to add
> >some mechanism to allow a thread to post a user-event for an fd? So in
> >delete_epoll_item you would post a user event (e.g. EPOLLUSER) for the
> >fd which you can then handle in your epoll_wait processing thread -
> >with no additional synchronisation necessary.
> I think this is an excellent suggestion, and in fact your proposal
> is more similar to what Windows provides when solving this problem.
> I'll test this idea out with our code and get back to you. Is there
> an existing kernel technique that you would recommend for posting a
> user event for an fd, or should I explore using epoll_ctl with
> EPOLL_CTL_MOD?
I don't know about any existing kernel technique for this, but my gut
feeling would be a new op value for epoll_ctl, maybe something like
EPOLL_CTL_TRIGGER.
Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
--
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