Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751650AbXBVPeQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:34:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751651AbXBVPeQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:34:16 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33205 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751638AbXBVPeP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:34:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:29:04 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, arjan@infradead.org, drepper@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@zip.com.au, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, zach.brown@oracle.com, suparna@in.ibm.com, davidel@xmailserver.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3 Message-ID: <20070222152904.GA17799@elte.hu> References: <20070222123929.GA5208@2ka.mipt.ru> <20070222.054127.104035694.davem@davemloft.net> <20070222143145.GA3246@elte.hu> <20070222.064704.71093028.davem@davemloft.net> <20070222151509.GA13670@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070222151509.GA13670@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -3.8 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-3.8 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0017] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1307 Lines: 26 * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > The pushback to the primary thread you speak of is just extra work > > in my mind, for networking. Better to just begin operations and sit > > in the primary thread(s) waiting for events, and when they arrive > > push the operations further along using non-blocking writes, reads, > > and accept() calls. There is no blocking context really needed for > > these kinds of things, so a mechanism that tries to provide one is a > > waste. > > one question is, what is cheaper, to block out of a read and a write and ^-------to back out > to set up the event notification and then to return to the user > context, or to just stay right in there with all the context already > constructed and on the stack, and schedule away and then come back and > queue back to the primary thread once the condition the thread is > waiting for is done? The latter isnt all that unattractive in my mind, > because it always does forward progress, with minimal 'backout' costs. Ingo - 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/