On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:24:00PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper ([email protected]) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:09:34PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov
> >([email protected]) wrote:
> >>Ok, to solve the problem in the way which should be good for both I
> >>decided to implement additional syscall which will allow to mark any
> >>event as ready and thus wake up appropriate threads. If userspace will
> >>request zero events to be marked as ready, syscall will just
> >>interrupt/wakeup one of the listeners parked in syscall.
>
> I'll wait for the new code drop to comment.
I posted it.
> >Btw, what about putting aditional multiplexer into add/remove/modify
> >switch? There will be logical 'ready' addon?
>
> Is it needed? Usually this is done with a *_wait call with a timeout of
> zero. That code path might have to be optimized but it should already
> be there.
It does not allow to mark events as ready.
And current interfaces wake up when either timeout is zero (in this case
thread itself does not sleep and can process events), or when there is
_new_ work - since there is no _new_ work, when thread awakened to
process it was killed, kernel does not think that something is wrong.
> --
> ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View,
> CA ❖
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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]
