On Wed, 2 May 2007 01:08:26 -0700
"Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, poll() level edge semantic is well defined, you cannot cheat or change it.
> >
> > If many threads call poll() on the same end point, they should *all* return POLLIN/whatever status.
>
> This means to me it's the wrong abstraction for this. We had a nice
> solution for this with Evgeniy's kevent interfaces. It worked without
> forcing futexes is this inflexible poll() interface.
poll() is a generalist interface. Not the *perfect* one, but well spreaded on other OS as well.
>
>
>
> > This is why programs usually use one thread to dispatch events to workers, or at least dont queue XXXX threads calling poll() on one fd.
>
> No. This is why programs are forced to waste cycles by doing this.
> Ideally this would not happen. Ideally you'd park all worker thread
> in the same place and have them woken up one by one. Again, Evgeniy's
> code was able to do this. This approach seems to be a big step
> backward.
I understand your concerns, but *this* patch bundle extends poll()/select()/epoll, and is not an alternative to kevent or other work in progress, (and linux centered)
Are you suggesting poll() system call should be deprecated ?
Most programs still use the archaic select() thing you know ...
-
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]
