lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)
jamal wrote:

>On Sat, 2004-04-03 at 14:42, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>
>>mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD) must be implemented in user space. If an event
>>is triggered, the kernel must send a notification to user space, and
>>then glibc must create the thread with the requested attributes for the
>>notification callback.
>>
>>
>
>I am ignorant about SIGEV_THREAD but from what i gathered above:
>
>- something (from user space??) attempts to create a thread in the
>kernel
>- the kernel sends notification to user space when said thread is
>created or done doing something it was asked
>
No - this part is wrong.

>- something (in glibc/userspace??) is signalled by the kernel to do
>something with the result
>
>
This is correct.

mq_notify is a function from the posix message queue interface:
It allows user space to request that a notification should be sent if a
new message is waiting in the message queue. There are two options for
the notification: a signal or a callback that should be called in the
context of a new thread.
Signals are trivial, but calling a function in the context of a new
thread is tricky: the kernel can't create new user space threads.
Thus the kernel interface for mq_notify with sigev_notify==SIGEV_THREAD
is an asynchroneous interface: the initial syscall just registers
something and if a message arrives in the queue, then a notice is sent
to user space. glibc must then create a SuS compatible interface on top
of that.

The problem is how should I sent the information that a message is
waiting to user space?

>> The current implementation in Andrew's -mm tree
>>uses single shot file descriptor - it works, but it's resource hungry.
>>
>>
>
>Essentially you attempt to open only a single fd via netlink as opposed
>to open/close behavior you are alluding to, is that correct?
>
Yes.

>then all events are unicast to this fd. I am assuming you dont need to
>have more than one listener to these events? example, could one process
>create such a event which multiple processes may be interested in?
>
>
Correct, always only one process interested in the notification.

>>Attached is a new proposal:
>>- split netlink_unicast into separate substeps
>>- use an AF_NETLINK socket for the message queue notification
>>
>>
>
>I am trying to frob why you mucked around with AF_NETLINK; maybe your
>response will shed some light.
>
>
I'm looking for the simplest interface to send 32 byte cookies from
kernel to user space. The final send must be non-blocking, setup can
block. Someone recommended that I should look at netlink.
netlink_unicast was nearly perfect, except that I had to split setup and
sending into two functions.

--
Manfred

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.170 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site