* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The pushback to the primary thread you speak of is just extra work
> > in my mind, for networking. Better to just begin operations and sit
> > in the primary thread(s) waiting for events, and when they arrive
> > push the operations further along using non-blocking writes, reads,
> > and accept() calls. There is no blocking context really needed for
> > these kinds of things, so a mechanism that tries to provide one is a
> > waste.
>
> one question is, what is cheaper, to block out of a read and a write and
^-------to back out
> to set up the event notification and then to return to the user
> context, or to just stay right in there with all the context already
> constructed and on the stack, and schedule away and then come back and
> queue back to the primary thread once the condition the thread is
> waiting for is done? The latter isnt all that unattractive in my mind,
> because it always does forward progress, with minimal 'backout' costs.
Ingo
-
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/
- References:
- Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
- Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
- Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
- Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
- Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3
[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]