On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, bert hubert wrote:
> >
> > From my end as an application developer, yes please. Either make it
> > perfectly ok to have thousands of outstanding asynchronous system calls (I
> > work with thousands of separate sockets), or allow me to select/poll/epoll
> > on the "async fd".
>
> No can do.
>
> Allocating an fd is actually too expensive, exactly because a lot of these
> operations are supposed to be a few hundred ns, and taking locks is simply
> a bad idea.
>
> But if you want to, we could have a *separate* "convert async cookie to
> fd" so that you can poll for it, or something.
>
> I doubt very many people want to do that. It would tend to simply be nicer
> to do
>
> async(poll);
> async(waitpid);
> async(.. wait foranything else ..)
>
> followed by a
>
> wait_for_async();
>
> That's just a much NICER approach, I would argue. And it automatically
> and very naturally solves the "wait for different kinds of events"
> question, in a way that "poll()" never did (except by turning all events
> into file descriptors or signals).
Bert, that was the first suggestion I gave to Zab. But then I realized
that a multiplexed poll/epoll can be "hosted" in an async op, just like
Linus showed above. Will work just fine IMO.
- 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]
