On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:19:40PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I completely agree with Evgeniy here.
>
> There is nothing in the kernel today that provides integrated event
> handling. Nothing. So when someone says to use the "existing" stuff,
> they need to have their head examined.
The existing AIO events are *events*, with the syscalls providing the
reading of events.
> The existing AIO stuff stinks as a set of interfaces. It was designed
> by a standards committee, not by people truly interested in a good
> performing event processing design. It is especially poorly suited
> for networking, and any networking developer understands this.
I disagree. Stuffing an event that a read or write is complete/ready is a
good way of handling things, even more so with hardware that will perform
the memory copies to/from user buffers.
> It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that we will need new
> APIs to get good networking performance. Every existing interface
> has one limitation or another.
Eh? Nobody has posted any numbers comparing the approaches yet, so this
is pure handwaving, unless you have real concrete results?
> So we should be happy people like Evgeniy try to work on this stuff,
> instead of discouraging them.
I would like to encourage him, but at the same time I don't want to see
creating APIs that essentially duplicate existing work and needlessly
break compatibility. I completely agree that the in-kernel APIs are not
as encompassing as they should be, and within the kernel Evgeniy's work
may well be the way to go. What I do not agree is that we need new
syscalls at this point. I'm perfectly willing to accept proof that change
is needed if we do a proper comparision between any new syscall API and the
use of the existing syscall API, but the pain of introducing a new API is
sufficiently large that I think it is worth looking at the numbers.
-ben
--
"Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only life is important."
Don't Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
