On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 17:41 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-07-28 am 10:52 -0400, ysgrifennodd Theodore Tso:
> > Good point, and limiting this facility to one such timeout per
> > task_struct seems like a reasonable restriction.
>
> Why is this any better than using a thread or signal handler ? From the
> implementation side its certainly horrible - we will be trying to write
> user pages from an IRQ event. Far better to let the existing thread code
> deal with it.
>
If the user page is special, in that it is really a kernel page mapped
to userspace. The implementation on making sure it doesn't disappear on
the interrupt isn't that difficult.
But for real-time applications, the signal handling has a huge latency.
Where as what Theodore wants to do is very light weight. ie. have a
high prio task doing smaller tasks until a specific time that tells it
to stop. Having a signal, would create the latency on having that task
stop.
These little requests make sense really only in the real-time space.
The normal uses can get by with signals. But I will say, the normal
uses for computing these days are starting to want the real-time
powers. :)
-- Steve
-
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]
