Re: [patch 00/11] ANNOUNCE: "Syslets", generic asynchronous system call support

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> Are there any special semantics that result from running the syslet
> atoms in kernel mode?  If I wanted to, could I write a syslet emulation
> in userspace that's functionally identical to a kernel-based
> implementation?  (Obviously the performance characteristics will be
> different.)
> 
> I'm asking from the perspective of trying to work out the Valgrind
> binding for this if it goes into the kernel.  Valgrind needs to see all
> the input and output values of each system call the client makes,
> including those done within the syslet mechanism.  It seems to me that
> the easiest way to do this would be to intercept the syslet system
> calls, and just implement them in usermode, performing the same series
> of syscalls directly, and applying the Valgrind machinery to each one in
> turn.
> 
> Would this work?

Hopefully the API will simplify enough so that emulation will becomes 
easier.



> Also, an unrelated question: is there enough control structure in place
> to allow multiple syslet streams to synchronize with each other with
> futexes?

I think the whole point of an async execution of a syscall or a syslet, is 
that the syscall/syslet itself includes a non interlocked operations with 
other syscalls/syslets. So that the main scheduler thread can run in a 
lockless/singletask fashion. There are no technical obstacles that 
prevents you to do it, bu if you start adding locks (and hence having 
long-living syslet-threads) at that point you'll end up with a fully 
multithreaded solution.



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/