lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, bert hubert wrote:
> >
> > From my end as an application developer, yes please. Either make it
> > perfectly ok to have thousands of outstanding asynchronous system calls (I
> > work with thousands of separate sockets), or allow me to select/poll/epoll
> > on the "async fd".
>
> No can do.
>
> Allocating an fd is actually too expensive, exactly because a lot of these
> operations are supposed to be a few hundred ns, and taking locks is simply
> a bad idea.
>
> But if you want to, we could have a *separate* "convert async cookie to
> fd" so that you can poll for it, or something.
>
> I doubt very many people want to do that. It would tend to simply be nicer
> to do
>
> async(poll);
> async(waitpid);
> async(.. wait foranything else ..)
>
> followed by a
>
> wait_for_async();
>
> That's just a much NICER approach, I would argue. And it automatically
> and very naturally solves the "wait for different kinds of events"
> question, in a way that "poll()" never did (except by turning all events
> into file descriptors or signals).

Bert, that was the first suggestion I gave to Zab. But then I realized
that a multiplexed poll/epoll can be "hosted" in an async op, just like
Linus showed above. Will work just fine IMO.




- 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-05 23:39    [W:0.084 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site