Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261943AbUDCUSw (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:18:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261928AbUDCUSv (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:18:51 -0500 Received: from mx01.cybersurf.com ([209.197.145.104]:39389 "EHLO mx01.cybersurf.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261925AbUDCUSs (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:18:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD) From: jamal Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca To: Manfred Spraul Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Wronski , Krzysztof Benedyczak In-Reply-To: <406F13A1.4030201@colorfullife.com> References: <406F13A1.4030201@colorfullife.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: jamalopolis Message-Id: <1081023487.2037.19.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 03 Apr 2004 15:18:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1646 Lines: 43 On Sat, 2004-04-03 at 14:42, Manfred Spraul wrote: > mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD) must be implemented in user space. If an event > is triggered, the kernel must send a notification to user space, and > then glibc must create the thread with the requested attributes for the > notification callback. I am ignorant about SIGEV_THREAD but from what i gathered above: - something (from user space??) attempts to create a thread in the kernel - the kernel sends notification to user space when said thread is created or done doing something it was asked - something (in glibc/userspace??) is signalled by the kernel to do something with the result Is the above correct? > The current implementation in Andrew's -mm tree > uses single shot file descriptor - it works, but it's resource hungry. Essentially you attempt to open only a single fd via netlink as opposed to open/close behavior you are alluding to, is that correct? then all events are unicast to this fd. I am assuming you dont need to have more than one listener to these events? example, could one process create such a event which multiple processes may be interested in? > Attached is a new proposal: > - split netlink_unicast into separate substeps > - use an AF_NETLINK socket for the message queue notification I am trying to frob why you mucked around with AF_NETLINK; maybe your response will shed some light. cheers, jamal - 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/