Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261893AbTE2FNb (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 01:13:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261904AbTE2FNb (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 01:13:31 -0400 Received: from ajax.cs.uga.edu ([128.192.251.3]:61854 "EHLO ajax.cs.uga.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261893AbTE2FNa (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 01:13:30 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jim Houston Subject: Re: signal queue resource - Posix timers From: Ed L Cashin Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 01:26:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20030529014608.GX8978@holomorphy.com> (William Lee Irwin III's message of "Wed, 28 May 2003 18:46:08 -0700") Message-ID: <87y90q1fxm.fsf@cs.uga.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090014 (Oort Gnus v0.14) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) References: <200305281856.h4SIuFZ02449@linux.local> <20030529014608.GX8978@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1743 Lines: 34 William Lee Irwin III writes: > On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Jim Houston wrote: >> In the pre-allocated approach, the timer code would allocate a >> sigqueue structure as part of the timer_create. I would add new >> send_sigqueue() and send_group_sigqueue() which would accept the >> pointer to the pre-allocated sigqueue structure rather than a siginfo >> pointer. There would also be changes to the code which dequeues the >> siginfo structure to recognize these preallocated sigqueue structures. >> In the case of Posix timers using a preallocated siqueue entry also >> makes handling overruns easier. If the timer code finds that its >> sigqueue structure is still queued, it can simply increment the >> overrun count. >> The reservation approach would keep a pre-allocated pool of sigqueue >> structures and a reservation count. The timer_create would reserve >> a sigqueue entry which would be place in the pool until it is needed. >> I wonder if anyone else is interested in this problem. > > Well, I've never run into it and it sounds really obscure, but I agree > in principle that it's better to return an explicit error to userspace > than to silently fail, at least when it's feasible (obviously the kernel > can be beaten to death with events faster than it can deliver them, so > it won't always be feasible). Why couldn't this be a configurable per-user thing like RSS rlimits? -- --Ed L Cashin PGP public key: http://noserose.net/e/pgp/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/