Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > Is there a (remote) possibility that the thread could have died and its > pid got reused by a new thread in another process ? Or is there a mechanism > that prevents such a possibility from arising (not just in NPTL library, > but at the kernel level) ? The UID/GID won't help you with dying processes. What if the same user creates a process with the same PID? That process will not expect the notification and mustn't receive it. If you cannot detect whether the issuing process died you have problems which cannot be solved with a uid/gid pair. > AIO for pipes should not be a problem - Chris Mason had a patch, so we can > just bring it up to the current levels, possibly with some additional > improvements. Good. > I'm not sure what would be the right thing to do for the sockets case. While > we could put together a patch for basic aio_read/write (based on the same > model used for files), given the whole ongoing kevent effort, its not yet > clear to me what would make the most sense ... > > Ben had a patch to do a fallback to kernel threads for AIO operations that > are not yet supported natively. I had some concerns about the approach, but > I guess he had intended it as an interim path for cases like this. A fallback solution would be sufficient. Nobody _should_ use POSIX AIO for networking but people do and just giving them something that works is good enough. It cannot really be worse than the userlevel emulation we have know. The alternative, separately and sequentially handling network sockets at userlevel is horrible. We'd have to go over every file descriptor and check whether it's a socket and then take if out of the request list for the kernel. Then they need to be handled separately before or after the kernel AIO code. This would punish unduly all the 99.9% of the programs which don't use POSIX AIO for network I/O. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Sébastien Dugué <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Zach Brown <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Sébastien Dugué <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Kernel patches enabling better POSIX AIO (Was Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile)
- From: Suparna Bhattacharya <[email protected]>
- Re: Kernel patches enabling better POSIX AIO (Was Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile)
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Kernel patches enabling better POSIX AIO (Was Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile)
- From: Suparna Bhattacharya <[email protected]>
- Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile() implementation.
- Prev by Date: Strange write starvation on 2.6.17 (and other) kernels
- Next by Date: [PATCH] [resend] update Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
- Previous by thread: Re: Kernel patches enabling better POSIX AIO (Was Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile)
- Next by thread: Re: Kernel patches enabling better POSIX AIO (Was Re: [3/4] kevent: AIO, aio_sendfile)
- Index(es):