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/
