Re: eventfd lookalike in FreeBSD ?
On 0728T1419, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Hi, > for some work we are doing on bhyve, we need some lightweight mechanism that > a kernel thread can use to wake up another user thread possibly > waiting for some event. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2172 ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: eventfd lookalike in FreeBSD ?
On 28 July 2015 at 10:42, David Chisnall wrote: > On 28 Jul 2015, at 18:33, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >> Windows has had this for years. It makes async network programming >> with thread worker queues significantly less abusive. > > Can you do the same with Solaris completion ports? It might be a good source > of inspiration for a good API if so. I don't think you can do it with the solaris event ports. I don't know about their more later stuff. -a ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: eventfd lookalike in FreeBSD ?
On 28 Jul 2015, at 18:33, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > Windows has had this for years. It makes async network programming > with thread worker queues significantly less abusive. Can you do the same with Solaris completion ports? It might be a good source of inspiration for a good API if so. David ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: eventfd lookalike in FreeBSD ?
On 28 July 2015 at 10:31, David Chisnall wrote: > On 28 Jul 2015, at 18:23, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >> (What would be nice is having kqueue know about conditionals, so we >> can sleep on a cond as well as a kqueue fd+queue, but I can't have >> everything I want..) > > I recently came across a need to do something like this. Being able to add > condvar / mutex pairs to a kqueue and wait on a set of condition variables, > reacquiring the mutexes for any of the signalled ones, as well as waiting for > kernel events would be very useful. Windows has had this for years. It makes async network programming with thread worker queues significantly less abusive. -adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: eventfd lookalike in FreeBSD ?
On 28 Jul 2015, at 18:23, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > (What would be nice is having kqueue know about conditionals, so we > can sleep on a cond as well as a kqueue fd+queue, but I can't have > everything I want..) I recently came across a need to do something like this. Being able to add condvar / mutex pairs to a kqueue and wait on a set of condition variables, reacquiring the mutexes for any of the signalled ones, as well as waiting for kernel events would be very useful. David ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: eventfd lookalike in FreeBSD ?
There's a kqueue notification mechanism just for this very thing. (What would be nice is having kqueue know about conditionals, so we can sleep on a cond as well as a kqueue fd+queue, but I can't have everything I want..) -adrian On 28 July 2015 at 05:19, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Hi, > for some work we are doing on bhyve, we need some lightweight mechanism that > a kernel thread can use to wake up another user thread possibly > waiting for some event. > > If the recipient of the event were a kernel thread it would simply > do a tsleep(chan...) and the sender would do a wakeup() or wakeup_one(). > > Do we have an equally simple option for a recipient that is a > userspace thread using something that is already in the kernel ? > Do we have some blocking syscall that ends up doing a tsleep in > a predictable way ? > > I suppose I could create a kqueue() descriptor and instruct the kernel > thread side to post an event instead of doing the wakeup, but > this seems a bit more expensive on both endpoints. > > cheers > luigi > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
