Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964832AbWH1Lrw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:47:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964831AbWH1Lrw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:47:52 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.193]:11177 "EHLO nz-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964834AbWH1Lrv (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:47:51 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TIa8OQe7Be/XpAGbRjZLgSvb7LMOmOZ4dGTcNSFzCJdDscPvjoMDx76peA1FzIEE7YDY36YU/9wB3hI3p2jHo6YgBAWCHGrGeVcWPNlfRws0yOGh/LAP/uceq/O9q0s/mYL8za5yLQY4pbdzOF+nSrz1afSWIAOwuaJO+fiibK8= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:47:50 +0200 From: "Jari Sundell" To: "Nicholas Miell" Subject: Re: [take14 0/3] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" , "Evgeniy Polyakov" , lkml , "David Miller" , "Andrew Morton" , netdev , "Zach Brown" , "Christoph Hellwig" , "Chase Venters" In-Reply-To: <1156733977.2358.31.camel@entropy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <11564996832717@2ka.mipt.ru> <44F208A5.4050308@redhat.com> <1156733977.2358.31.camel@entropy> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 996 Lines: 21 On 8/28/06, Nicholas Miell wrote: > Also complicated is the case where waiting threads have different > priorities, different timeouts, and different minimum event counts -- > how do you decide which thread gets events first? What if the decisions > are different depending on whether you want to maximize throughput or > interactivity? BTW, what is the intended use of the min event count parameter? The obvious reason I can see, avoiding waking up a thread too often with few queued events, would imo be handled cleaner by just passing a parameter telling the kernel to try to queue more events. With a min event count you'd have to use a rather low timeout to ensure that events get handled within a resonable time. Rakshasa - 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/