On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:25, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:07, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:52:34PM +0200, Eric Dumazet
([email protected])
> wrote:
> > > > What about the case, which I described in other e-mail, when in case
of
> > > > the full ring buffer, no new events are written there, and when
> > > > userspace commits (i.e. marks as ready to be freed or requeued by
> > > > kernel) some events, new ones will be copied from ready queue into the
> > > > buffer?
> > >
> > > Then, user might receive 'false events', exactly like
> > > poll()/select()/epoll() can do sometime. IE a 'ready' indication while
> > > there is no current event available on a particular fd / event_source.
> >
> > Only if user simultaneously uses oth interfaces and remove even from the
> > queue when it's copy was in mapped buffer, but in that case it's user's
> > problem (and if we do want, we can store pointer/index of the ring
> > buffer entry, so when event is removed from the ready queue (using
> > kevent_get_events()), appropriate entry in the ring buffer will be
> > updated to show that it is no longer valid.
> >
> > > This should be safe, since those programs already ignore read()
> > > returns -EAGAIN and other similar things.
> > >
> > > Programmer prefers to receive two 'event available' indications than
ZERO
> > > (and be stuck for infinite time). Of course, hot path (normal cases)
> > > should return one 'event' only.
> > >
> > > In order words, being ultra fast 99.99 % of the time, but being able to
> > > block forever once in a while is not an option.
> >
> > Have I missed something? It looks like the only problematic situation is
> > described above when user simultaneously uses both interfaces.
>
> In my point of view, user of the 'mmaped ring buffer' should be prepared to
> use both interfaces. Or else you are forced to presize the ring buffer to
> insane limits.
I don't see why overflow couldn't be handle by a syscall telling the kernel
that the buffer is ready for new events. As mentioned most of the time
overflow should not happend and if it does the syscall should be amortized
nicely by the number of events.
> That is :
> - Most of the time, we expect consuming events via mmaped ring buffer and no
> syscalls.
> - In case we notice a 'mmaped ring buffer overflow', syscalls to get/consume
> events that could not be stored in mmaped buffer (but queued by kevent
> subsystem). If not stored by kevent subsystem (memory failure ?), revert to
> poll() to fetch all 'missed fds' in one row. Go back to normal mode.
>
> - In case of empty ring buffer (or no mmap support at all, because this app
> doesnt expect lot of events per time unit, or because kevent dont have mmap
> support) : Be able to syscall and wait for an event.
As I see it there are two main problems with a mmapped ring buffer (correct me
if I'm wrong):
1. Overflow.
2. Handle multiple kernel event that only needs one user event. I.e. multiple
packet arriving at the same socket. The user should only see one IN event at
the time he is ready to handle it.
In an earlier post I suggested a scheme that solves these issues. It was based
on the assumption that kernel and user-space share index variables and can
read/update them atomically without much overhead. Only in cases where the
buffer is empty and full system call would be required.
Hans Henrik Happe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
