Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964781AbXBEV5r (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:57:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964783AbXBEV5r (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:57:47 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:35513 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964781AbXBEV5q (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:57:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:57:15 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: bert hubert cc: Davide Libenzi , Ingo Molnar , Zach Brown , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-aio@kvack.org, Suparna Bhattacharya , Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: [PATCH 2 of 4] Introduce i386 fibril scheduling In-Reply-To: <20070205213618.GA30923@outpost.ds9a.nl> Message-ID: References: <20070201083611.GC18233@elte.hu> <20070202104900.GA13941@elte.hu> <20070202222110.GA1212@elte.hu> <20070205213618.GA30923@outpost.ds9a.nl> 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: 2349 Lines: 61 On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, bert hubert wrote: > > From my end as an application developer, yes please. Either make it > perfectly ok to have thousands of outstanding asynchronous system calls (I > work with thousands of separate sockets), or allow me to select/poll/epoll > on the "async fd". No can do. Allocating an fd is actually too expensive, exactly because a lot of these operations are supposed to be a few hundred ns, and taking locks is simply a bad idea. But if you want to, we could have a *separate* "convert async cookie to fd" so that you can poll for it, or something. I doubt very many people want to do that. It would tend to simply be nicer to do async(poll); async(waitpid); async(.. wait foranything else ..) followed by a wait_for_async(); That's just a much NICER approach, I would argue. And it automatically and very naturally solves the "wait for different kinds of events" question, in a way that "poll()" never did (except by turning all events into file descriptors or signals). > Alternatively, something like SIGIO ('SIGASYS'?) might be considered, but, > well, the fd might be easier. Again. NO WAY. Signals are just damn expensive. At most, it would be an option again, but if you want high performance, signals simply aren't very good. They are also a nice way to make your user-space code very racy. > In fact, perhaps the communication channel might simply *be* an fd. Queueing > up syscalls sounds remarkably like sending datagrams. I'm the first to say that file descriptors is the UNIX way, but so are processes, and I think this is MUCH better done as a "process" interface. In other words, instead of doing it as a filedescriptor, do it as a "micro-fork/exec", and have the "wait()" equivalent. It's just that we don't fork a "real process", and we don't exec a "real program", we just exec a single system call. If you think of it in those terms, it all makes sense *without* any file descriptors what-so-ever, and the "wait_for_async()" interface also makes a ton of sense (it really *is* "waitpid()" for the system call). Linus - 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/