On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't think the "atom" approach is bad per se. I think it could be fine
> to have some state information in user space. It's just that I think
> complex interfaces that people largely won't even use is a big mistake. We
> should concentrate on usability first, and some excessive cleverness
> really isn't a big advantage.
>
> Being able to do a "open + stat" looks like a fine thing. But I doubt
> you'll see a lot of other combinations.
I actually think that building chains of syscalls bring you back to a
multithreaded solution. Why? Because suddendly the service thread become
from servicing a syscall (with possible cachehit optimization), to
servicing a whole session. So the number of service threads needed (locked
down by a chain) becomes big because requests goes from being short-lived
syscalls to long-lived chains of them. Think about the trivial web server,
and think about a chain that does open->fstat->sendhdrs->sendfile after an
accept. What's the difference with a multithreaded solution that does
accept->clone and execute the above code in the new thread? Nada, NIL.
Actually, there is a difference. The standard multithreaded function is
easier to code in C than with the complex atoms chains. The number of
service thread becomes suddendly proportional to the number of active
sessions.
The more I look at this, the more I think that async_submit should submit
simple syscalls, or an array of them (unrelated/parallel).
- 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]
