On Wed, 30 May 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > To echo Uli and paraphrase an ad, "it's the interface, silly."
> >
> > THERE IS NO INTERFACE! You're just making that up, and glossing over
> > the most important part of the whole thing!
> >
> > If you could actually point to something specific that matches what
> > everybody needs, and is architecture-neutral, it would be a different
> > issue. As is, you're just saying "memory-mapped interfaces" without
> > actually going into enough detail to show HOW MUCH IT SUCKS.
> >
> > There really are very few programs that would use them. [...]
>
> looking over the list of our new generic APIs (see further below) i
> think there are three important things that are needed for an API to
> become widely used:
>
> 1) it should solve a real problem (ha ;-), it should be intuitive to
> humans and it should fit into existing things naturally.
>
> 2) it should be ubiquitous. (if it's about IO it should cover block IO,
> network IO, timers, signals and everything) Even if it might look
> silly in some of the cases, having complete, utter, no compromises,
> 100% coverage for everything massively helps the uptake of an API,
> because it allows the user-space coder to pick just one paradigm
> that is closest to his application and stick to it and only to it.
>
> 3) it should be end-to-end supported by glibc.
>
> our failed API attempts so far were:
>
> - sendfile(). This API mainly failed on #2. It partly failed on #1 too.
> (couldnt be used in certain types of scenarios so was unintuitive.)
> splice() fixes this almost completely.
>
> - KAIO. It fails on #2 and #3.
>
> our more successful new APIs:
>
> - futexes. After some hickups they form the base of all modern
> user-space locking.
>
> - splice. (a bit too early to tell but it's looking good so far. Would
> be nice if someone did a brute-force memcpy() based vmsplice to user
> memory, just to make usage fully symmetric.)
>
> partially successful, not yet failed new APIs:
>
> - epoll. It currently fails at #2 (v2.6.22 mostly fills the gaps but
> not completely). Despite the non-complete coverage of event domains a
> good number of apps are using it, and in particular a couple really
> 'high end' apps with massive amounts of event sources - which apps
> would have no chance with poll, select or threads.
>
> - inotify. It's being used quite happily on the desktop, despite some
> of its limitations. (Possibly integratable into epoll?)
I think, as Linus pointed out (as I did a few months ago), that there's
confusion about the term "Unification" or "Single Interface".
Unification is not about fetching all the data coming from the more
diverse sources, into a single interface. That is just broken, because
each data source wants a different data structure to be reported.
This is ABI-hell 101. Unification is the ability to uniformly wait for
readiness, and then fetch data with source-dependent collectors (read(2),
io_getvents(2), ...). That way you have ABI isolation on the single
data source, and not monster structures trying to blob together the more
diverse data formats.
AFAIK, inotify works with select/poll/epoll as is.
- Davide
-
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:
- Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
- Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
- Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
- Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
- Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
- Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
[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]