Re: [take25 1/6] kevent: Description.

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:05:31PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov (johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 02:33:16PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > >+ int kevent_commit(int ctl_fd, unsigned int start, 
> > >+ 	unsigned int num, unsigned int over);
> > 
> > I think we can simplify this interface:
> > 
> >    int kevent_commit(int ctl_fd, unsigned int new_tail,
> >                      unsigned int over);
> > 
> > The kernel sets the ring_uidx value to the 'new_tail' value if the tail 
> > pointer would be incremented (module wrap around) and is not higher then 
> > the current front pointer.  The test will be a bit complicated but not 
> > more so than what the current code has to do to check for mistakes.
> > 
> > This approach has the advantage that the commit calls don't have to be 
> > synchronized.  If one thread sets the tail pointer to, say, 10 and 
> > another to 12, then it does not matter whether the first thread is 
> > delayed.  If it will eventually be executed the result is simply a no-op 
> > and since second thread's action supersedes it.
> > 
> > Maybe the current form is even impossible to use with explicit locking 
> > at userlevel.  What if one thread, which is about to call kevent_commit, 
> > if indefinitely delayed.  Then this commit request's value is never 
> > taken into account and the tail pointer is always short of what it 
> > should be.
> 
> I like this interface, although current one does not allow special

...does not require...

> synchronization in userspace, since it calculates if new commit is in
> the area where previous commit was.
> Will change for the next release.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/