On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> in fact an app could also /trigger/ the execution of a syscall in a
> different context - to create parallelism artificially - without any
> blocking event. So we could do:
>
> cookie1 = sys_async(sys_read, params);
> cookie2 = sys_async(sys_write, params);
>
> [ ... calculation loop ... ]
>
> wait_on_async_syscall(cookie1);
> wait_on_async_syscall(cookie2);
>
> or something like that. Without user-space having to create threads
> itself, etc. So basically, we'd make kernel threads more useful, and
> we'd make threading safer - by only letting syscalls thread.
Since I still think that the many-thousands potential async operations
coming from network sockets are better handled with a classical event
machanism [1], and since smooth integration of new async syscall into the
standard POSIX infrastructure is IMO a huge win, I think we need to have a
"bridge" to allow async completions being detectable through a pollable
(by the mean of select/poll/epoll whatever) device.
In that way you can handle async operations with the best mechanism that
is fit for them, and gather them in a single async scheduler.
[1] Unless you really want to have thousands of kthreads/fibrils lingering
on the system.
- Davide
-
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]
