[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ecbed98e-882a-0c0e-d4e1-bd33960f3674@samba.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 12:34:40 +0100
From: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
To: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: kernel@...labora.com, krisman@...labora.com,
pgriffais@...vesoftware.com, z.figura12@...il.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, malteskarupke@...tmail.fm,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, fweimer@...hat.com,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
shuah@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add futex2 syscall
Hi André,
> ** The wait on multiple problem
>
> The use case lies in the Wine implementation of the Windows NT interface
> WaitMultipleObjects. This Windows API function allows a thread to sleep
> waiting on the first of a set of event sources (mutexes, timers, signal,
> console input, etc) to signal.
With that in mind would it be good to have some interaction with epoll (and similar calls)?
Instead of having a blocked futex_waitv() waiting on an fd (maybe a generic eventfd() or a new futex2fd())
would be a better interface?
Or instead introduce an IORING_OP_FUTEX2_WAITV? Then the futex_waitv logic wait
in an io-wq kernel thread...
I guess the io_uring way would mean we could have that in mind as future addition, which can be implemented
later...
metze
Powered by blists - more mailing lists