Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964783AbXBEWfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:35:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965012AbXBEWfL (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:35:11 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:4134 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964783AbXBEWfK (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:35:10 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:34:48 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: bert hubert , 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: Message-ID: References: <20070201083611.GC18233@elte.hu> <20070202104900.GA13941@elte.hu> <20070202222110.GA1212@elte.hu> <20070205213618.GA30923@outpost.ds9a.nl> X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc 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: 1576 Lines: 49 On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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). Bert, that was the first suggestion I gave to Zab. But then I realized that a multiplexed poll/epoll can be "hosted" in an async op, just like Linus showed above. Will work just fine IMO. - Davide - 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/