On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:47:04AM -0800, David Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> As a side note although Evgeniy likes M:N threading model ideas, they
> are a mine field wrt. signal semantics. Solaris guys took several
> years to get it right, just grep through the Solaris kernel patch
> readme files over the years to get an idea of how bad it can be. I
> would therefore never advocate such an approach.
I have fully synchronous kevent signal delivery for that purpose :)
Having all events synchronous allows trivial handling of them -
including signals.
> The more I think about it, a reasonable solution might actually be to
> use threadlets for disk I/O and pure event based processing for
> networking. It is two different handling paths and non-unified,
> but that might be the price for good performance :-)
Hmm, yes, for such scenario we need some kind of event delivery
mechanism, which would allow to wait on different kinds of events.
In the above sentence I see known to pain letters -
letter k
letter e
letter v
letter e
letter n
letter t
Or more modern trend - async_wait(epoll).
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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/
